| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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: | 2002-04-04 19:52:29 |
| Message-ID: | 25504.1017949949@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Yes, I now think that saving the SET commands that are ignored in a
> transaction and running them _after_ the transaction completes may be
> the best thing.
No, that's just plain ridiculous. If you want to change the semantics
of SET, then make it work *correctly*, viz like an SQL statement: roll
it back on transaction abort. Otherwise leave it alone.
> If we don't somehow get this to work, how do we do timeouts, which we
> all know we should have?
This is utterly unrelated to timeouts. With or without any changes in
SET behavior, JDBC would need to issue a SET after completion of the
transaction if they wanted to revert a query_timeout variable to the
no-timeout state.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fernando Nasser | 2002-04-04 20:16:07 | Re: What's the CURRENT schema ? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-04 19:11:55 | Re: timeout implementation issues |