| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <david(at)fetter(dot)org>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu> |
| Subject: | Re: [JDBC] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al. |
| Date: | 2010-10-14 17:25:13 |
| Message-ID: | 4CB6F6A902000025000369EF@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
Robert Haas wrote:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I thought we had decided on the client-side approach, but maybe
> I'm confused. I don't have a position one way or the other, just
> trying to understand the state of the conversation.
Well, I've been pretty vocal on supporting a client-side solution,
and Rados*aw clearly is in that camp, but that hardly makes a
consensus. David still has his patch out there, and Tom's comments
seemed to imply that he supports a solution involving the
statement_timeout GUC, so the question hardly seems settled.
Regarding JDBC in the CF process -- other interfaces are handled
there. I haven't seen one patch this size for JDBC since I've been
involved, let alone two competing patches to implement the same
feature. Small patches which can be quickly handled don't make sense
to put into the process, but it seemed reasonable for these.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-14 17:29:58 | Re: SQL command to edit postgresql.conf, with comments |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-10-14 17:18:26 | Re: A small update for postgresql.conf.sample |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Radosław Smogura | 2010-10-14 18:40:57 | Re: [JDBC] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al. |
| Previous Message | Patricia Rincon Lopez | 2010-10-14 16:52:53 | problema con password |