| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, adnandursun(at)asrinbilisim(dot)com(dot)tr, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
| Date: | 2005-05-03 17:39:15 |
| Message-ID: | 29529.1115141955@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> Does statement_timeout fire on that scenario? How about the new
> transaction_timeout option discussed in other threads?
Probably neither, since very likely you aren't in a transaction at all.
I'd not expect the server to send these messages except when it's been
idle for awhile, so statement_timeout is certainly irrelevant.
BTW, the upthread proposal of just dropping the message (which is what
O_NONBLOCK would do) doesn't work; it will lose encryption sync on SSL
connections.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-05-03 17:46:07 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-05-03 17:36:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Decision Process WAS: Increased company |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-05-04 06:46:10 | Re: Cleaning up unreferenced table files |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2005-05-03 16:51:42 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |