| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| 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>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-04 04:08:59 |
| Message-ID: | 3CABD1DB.DBEC444F@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > Why should the timeout be reset automatically ?
> > >
> > > It doesn't need to be reset automatically, but the problem is that if
> > > you are doing a timeout for single statement in a transaction, and that
> > > statement aborts the transaction, the SET command after it to reset the
> > > timeout fails.
> >
> > As for ODBC, there's no state that *abort* but still inside
> > a transaction currently.
>
> Yes, the strange thing is that SET inside a transaction _after_ the
> transaction aborts is ignored, while SET before inside a transaction
> before the transaction aborts is accepted.
What I meant is there's no such problem with psqlodbc
at least currently because the driver issues ROLLBACK
automatically on abort inside a transaction.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-04 04:09:27 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-04 04:05:07 | Re: timeout implementation issues |