Re: timeout on lock feature

On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 07:33:24PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > What might be a reasonable alternative would be a BEGIN timeout: report 
> > failure as soon as possible after N seconds unless the timer is reset, 
> > such as by a commit.  Such a timeout would be meaningful at the 
> > database-interface level.  It could serve as a useful building block 
> > for application-level timeouts when the client environment has trouble 
> > applying timeouts on its own.
> 
> Now that is a nifty idea.  Just put it on one command, BEGIN, and have
> it apply for the whole transaction.  We could just set an alarm and do a
> longjump out on timeout.

Of course, it begs the question why the client couldn't do that
itself, and leave PG out of the picture.  But that's what we've 
been talking about all along.

Nathan Myers
ncm@zembu.com