| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 23:48:24 |
| Message-ID: | 3CACE648.DF7C8E5E@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> 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.
Or we don't have to reset the timeout at all.
For example when we are about to issue a command, we
can check if the requested timeout is different from
the current server's timeout. We don't have to (re)set
the timeout unless they are different.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-05 00:47:16 | Re: What's the CURRENT schema ? |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-04 23:40:51 | Re: What's the CURRENT schema ? |