Re: timeout implementation issues

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tom Lane
> > >
> > > Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > > > Could we get out of this by defining that "timeout" is
> > > > automatically reset at next statement end?
> > >
> > > I was hoping to avoid that, because it seems like a wart. OTOH,
> > > it'd be less of a wart than the global changes of semantics that
> > > Bruce is proposing :-(
> >
> > Probably I'm misunderstanding this thread.
> > Why must the query_timeout be reset particularly ?
> > What's wrong with simply issueing set query_timeout
> > command just before every query ?
>
> You could do that, but we also imagine cases where people would want to
> set a timeout for each query in an entire session.

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 ?

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue