From: | Till Toenges <tt(at)kyon(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL - JDBC <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Implementing setQueryTimeout() - round 2 |
Date: | 2008-02-19 08:27:29 |
Message-ID: | 47BA92F1.3040707@kyon.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Oliver Jowett wrote:
> - softQueryTimeout: 0=disabled, >0 = timeout in ms, default 0
> - hardQueryTimeout: 0=disabled, >0 = timeout in ms, default 0
> - softQueryMargin: -1=disabled, >=0 = margin in ms, default 0
> - hardQueryMargin: -1=disabled, >=0 = margin in ms, default 60s
I had to think about how you mean this. Doesn't this reduce to just one
useful parameter, namely hardQueryMargin? If hardQueryMargin is set,
then kill the connection after setQueryTimeout() + hardQueryMargin
seconds? All other cases would be covered by setting appropriate values
for these two.
And i'm still not quite convinced that anything but "softQueryTimeout"
should be implemented by the driver, but that's just my personal
opinion. How about starting with the simple case (using set), and then
see how it turns out in the real world?
Till
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oliver Jowett | 2008-02-19 08:30:11 | Re: Implementing setQueryTimeout() - round 2 |
Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2008-02-19 08:27:22 | Re: Implementing setQueryTimeout() |