From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Ed Loehr <ed(at)LoehrTech(dot)com>, dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com, Matthew Kennedy <mkennedy(at)opushealthcare(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: implementing query timeout |
Date: | 2002-07-11 16:20:45 |
Message-ID: | 200207111620.g6BGKjr24430@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> > > Statements is everything. DDL- and DML-statements. Query is IMHO synonym
> > > for DML-statement. So query_timeout is the right term.
> >
> > But the timeout is for any statement, not just SELECT/UPDATE, etc, so it
> > sounds like you are voting for 'statement'.
>
> No, I am voting for 'query'. I don't see the point in allowing a
> timeout for utility statements. Why would someone want a timeout
> on CREATE INDEX, COPY or VACUUM? Allowing that would IMHO be
> calling for more trouble than necessary.
Seems pretty arbitrary to time just DML and not DLL. I can even imagine
this for VACUUM FULL where you don't want it running for a long time.
It is under their control and they can turn it off if they don't want it
for those statements.
--
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 | Joe Conway | 2002-07-11 16:44:34 | Re: workaround for lack of REPLACE() function |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-11 14:06:36 | Re: workaround for lack of REPLACE() function |