Re: [HACKERS] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al.

Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> > why would we do this client-side rather than server-side?
>
> Because the timeout is supposed to be a limit on the time allowed
> for specific Java methods to complete, which might be running a
> large number of SQL statements within one invocation, and which may
> include significant network latency.  It's a lot of work to get
> "pretty close" on the server side, and you can never really
> implement exactly what the JDBC API is requesting.
>
> What if you have an app which can draw data from any of a number of
> remote databases, and you want to use this limit so if one becomes
> unavailable for some reason you can re-run the request on another
> within a reasonable time?  The network connection goes down after
> you submit your request, you've got a period of minutes or hours
> until TCP gives up, and the user expects a response within a few
> seconds...
>
> If you implement something with server-side semantics, there's
> nothing to prevent an application which is PostgreSQL-aware from
> accessing it through JDBC, of course.  statement_timeout and other
> GUCs can be set locally to your heart's content.

OK, thanks.  Just had to ask.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +