Re: timeout implementation issues
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: timeout implementation issues |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25504.1017949949@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: timeout implementation issues (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: timeout implementation issues
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Yes, I now think that saving the SET commands that are ignored in a > transaction and running them _after_ the transaction completes may be > the best thing. No, that's just plain ridiculous. If you want to change the semantics of SET, then make it work *correctly*, viz like an SQL statement: roll it back on transaction abort. Otherwise leave it alone. > If we don't somehow get this to work, how do we do timeouts, which we > all know we should have? This is utterly unrelated to timeouts. With or without any changes in SET behavior, JDBC would need to issue a SET after completion of the transaction if they wanted to revert a query_timeout variable to the no-timeout state. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: