| From: | Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| 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>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-07 04:40:22 |
| Message-ID: | 3CAFCDB6.40803@xythos.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Note: I am now pretty well convinced that we *must* fix SET to roll back
> to start-of-transaction settings on transaction abort. If we do that,
> at least some of the difficulty disappears for JDBC to handle one-shot
> timeouts by issuing SETs before and after the target query against a
> query_timeout variable that otherwise acts like a good-til-canceled
> setting. Can we all compromise on that?
>
This plan should work well for JDBC. (It actually makes the code on the
jdbc side pretty easy).
thanks,
--Barry
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-07 05:09:10 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | "." | 2002-04-07 02:31:43 | sqlbang |