| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-08 00:33:33 |
| Message-ID: | 3CB0E55D.949CF85D@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > > Sorry I couldn't understand your point.
> > > > It seems the simplest and the most certain way is to call
> > > > 'SET QUERY_TIMEOUT per query. The way dosen't require
> > > > RESET at all. Is the overhead an issue ?
> > >
> > > What about psql and libpq. Doing a timeout before every query is a
> > > pain.
> >
> > Psql and libpq would simply issue the query according to the
> > user's request as they currently do. What's pain with it ?
>
> If they wanted to place a timeout on all queries in a session, they
> would need a SET for every query, which seems like a pain.
Oh I see. You mean users' pain ?
If a user wants to place a timeout on all the query, he
would issue SET query_timeout command only once.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-08 01:13:17 | Re: Question on ident authorization |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-08 00:27:44 | Re: timeout implementation issues |