| From: | Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-01 22:27:04 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0204011722110.10472-100000@atalanta.dynamicdiagrams.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Why don't we use two separate GUC variables and leave the
> BEGIN syntax as is completely?
>
> SET transaction_timeout = m;
> SET statement_timeout = n;
What's a GUC variable? Would this apply to all subsequent statements? I
think it needs to apply to just the specified statement.
I'm sorry about the confusion earlier when I said that
setQueryTimeout() was transaction-level; Barry Lind correctly pointed out
that it is statement-level. We mostly seem to feel that we don't want to
do both, so is statement-only okay? Jan, do you feel strongly that you
want to see both implemented?
> If you want to go sub-second, I suggest making it
> microseconds. That's what struct timeval (used in struct
I don't think that's necessary. JDBC only wants it specified in seconds.
j
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-01 23:15:00 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Bear Giles | 2002-04-01 22:14:59 | inserting user defined types through a rule? |