On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It shouldn't be terribly costly. One thing you might consider, if you're
> wrapping the statements in transactions anyway, is to use SET LOCAL whose
> effects won't last beyond the transaction. I don't think this will make
> any notable difference speed-wise, but it just seems a tad cleaner if the
> timeouts don't persist.
>
Makes sense. Thanks again!
-William