Re: timeout implementation issues

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > Why should the timeout be reset automatically ?
> > >
> > > It doesn't need to be reset automatically, but the problem is that if
> > > you are doing a timeout for single statement in a transaction, and that
> > > statement aborts the transaction, the SET command after it to reset the
> > > timeout fails.
> >
> > As for ODBC, there's no state that *abort* but still inside
> > a transaction currently.
> 
> Yes, the strange thing is that SET inside a transaction _after_ the
> transaction aborts is ignored, while SET before inside a transaction
> before the transaction aborts is accepted.

What I meant is there's no such problem with psqlodbc
at least currently because the driver issues ROLLBACK
automatically on abort inside a transaction.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue