Re: timeout implementation issues

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: timeout implementation issues
Date: 2002-04-06 01:33:37
Message-ID: 200204060133.g361Xbj05133@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > Could we get out of this by defining that "timeout" is
> > automatically reset at next statement end?
>
> I was hoping to avoid that, because it seems like a wart. OTOH,
> it'd be less of a wart than the global changes of semantics that
> Bruce is proposing :-(
>
> How exactly would you make this happen? The simplest way I can think of
> to do it (reset timeout in outer loop in postgres.c) would not work,
> because it'd reset the timeout as soon as the SET statement completes.
> How would you get the setting to survive for exactly one additional
> statement?

Sure, you could reset it, but there are going to be cases where you want
to do a timeout=6000 for the entire session. If it resets after the
first statement, this is hard to do.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-06 01:38:58 Re: timeout implementation issues
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-06 01:32:47 Re: timeout implementation issues