| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-08 15:32:50 |
| Message-ID: | 3CB1B822.91167606@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > I consider SET variables metadata that are not affected by transactions.
> Why? Again, the fact that historically they've not acted that way isn't
> sufficient reason for me.
Hmm. Historically, SET controls behaviors *out of band* with the normal
transaction mechanisms. There is strong precedent for this mechanism
*because it is a useful concept*, not simply because it has always been
done this way.
*If* some aspects of SET take on transactional behavior, then this
should be *in addition to* the current global scope for those commands.
What problem are we trying to solve with this? The topic came up in a
discussion on implementing timeouts for JDBC. afaik it has not come up
*in any context* for the last seven years, so maybe we should settle
down a bit and refocus on the problem at hand...
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-08 15:56:17 | Re: Debugging symbols by default |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-08 15:29:58 | Re: timeout implementation issues |