Re: timeout implementation issues

Jessica,

My reading of the JDBC spec would indicate that this is a statement 
level property (aka query level) since the method to enable this is on 
the Statement object and is named setQueryTimeout().  There is nothing I 
can find that would indicate that this would apply to the transaction in 
my reading of the jdbc spec.

thanks,
--Barry

Jessica Perry Hekman wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> 
>>I don't know which people want, and maybe this is why we need both GUC
>>and BEGIN WORK timeouts.  I don't remember this distinction in previous
>>discussions but it may be significant.  Of course, the GUC could behave
>>at a transaction level as well.  It will be tricky to manage multiple
>>alarms in a single process, but it can be done by creating an alarm
>>queue.
> 
> 
> I think we should do just BEGIN WORK (transaction-level) timeouts; that is
> all that the JDBC spec asks for. Does that sound good to people?
> 
> So the work that would need to be done is asking the driver to request the
> timeout via "BEGIN WORK TIMEOUT 5"; getting the backend to parse that
> request and set the alarm on each query in that transaction; getting the
> backend to send a cancel request if the alarm goes off. I am right now in
> the process of finding the place where BEGIN-level queries are parsed. Any
> pointers to the right files to read would be appreciated.
> 
> j
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>