Re: timeout implementation issues

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>, 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 02:20:39
Message-ID: 28282.1018146039@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:
> 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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-07 02:22:27 Re: timeout implementation issues
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-07 02:15:50 Re: timeout implementation issues