| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-04 04:05:07 |
| Message-ID: | 200204040405.g34457D03048@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > Why should the timeout be reset automatically ?
> >
> > It doesn't need to be reset automatically, but the problem is that if
> > you are doing a timeout for single statement in a transaction, and that
> > statement aborts the transaction, the SET command after it to reset the
> > timeout fails.
>
> As for ODBC, there's no state that *abort* but still inside
> a transaction currently.
Yes, the strange thing is that SET inside a transaction _after_ the
transaction aborts is ignored, while SET before inside a transaction
before the transaction aborts is accepted.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-04 04:08:59 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-04 03:41:05 | What's the CURRENT schema ? |