| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-05 03:22:57 |
| Message-ID: | 200204050322.g353MvS05755@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I am still looking for a constructive idea on how we can get this to
> > work, rather than calling my ideas "ridiculous".
>
> We know very well how to make it work: JDBC can issue a SET timeout = 0
> after exiting the transaction. You're proposing to change the semantics
> of SET into something quite bizarre in order to allow JDBC to not have
> to work as hard. I think that's a bad tradeoff.
It that acceptable to the JDBC folks? It requires two "SET timeout = 0"
statements, one after the statement in the transaction, and another
after the transaction COMMIT WORK.
--
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 | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-05 04:40:31 | Re: Changing column types... |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-05 03:10:07 | Re: Changing column types... |