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>, 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 22:33:27
Message-ID: 29013.1017959607@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:
> I am still looking for a constructive idea on how we can get this to
> work, rather than calling my ideas "ridiculous".

We know very well how to make it work: JDBC can issue a SET timeout = 0
after exiting the transaction. You're proposing to change the semantics
of SET into something quite bizarre in order to allow JDBC to not have
to work as hard. I think that's a bad tradeoff.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-04-04 22:34:49 Re: What's the CURRENT schema ?
Previous Message Hiroshi Inoue 2002-04-04 21:49:56 Re: What's the CURRENT schema ?