From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: compiling client utils under win32 - current 7.3devel |
Date: | 2002-09-26 03:56:56 |
Message-ID: | 200209260356.g8Q3uuA12118@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Uh, I thought you were changing connection_timeout, which is libpq and
> > not a GUC parameter
>
> Yup, you're right -- I got myself confused. Sorry.
>
> > not statement_timeout. Do we want sub-second
> > timeout values? Not sure.
> >
>
> I found it surprising that the statement_timeout was not in units of seconds,
> but that's only because I read the docs after I tried it instead of before. I
> can't think of a reason to have sub-second values, but it's probably not worth
> changing it at this point.
Most queries are sub-second in duration so it seemed logical to keep it
the same as deadlock_timeout. I can see someone setting a 1/2 second
delay for queries.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-26 03:58:21 | Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-26 03:55:56 | Re: postmaster -d option (was Re: [GENERAL] Relation 0 does not exist) |