Re: timeout implementation issues

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>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: timeout implementation issues
Date: 2002-04-07 02:22:27
Message-ID: 200204070222.g372MRi03490@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:
> > Ewe, I was hoping for something with zero overhead for the non-SET case.
>
> Well, a function call and immediate return if no SET has been executed
> in the current xact seems low enough overhead to me. We'll just keep
> a flag showing whether there's anything to do.

Oh, I thought you were going to save all the GUC variables on
transaction start. I now assume you are going to have one field per
variable for the pre-xact value. That is fine.

--
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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message "." 2002-04-07 02:31:43 sqlbang
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-07 02:20:39 Re: timeout implementation issues