| From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Ed Loehr <ed(at)LoehrTech(dot)com>, dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com, Matthew Kennedy <mkennedy(at)opushealthcare(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: implementing query timeout |
| Date: | 2002-07-11 04:57:23 |
| Message-ID: | 3D2D1033.55D089D6@Yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > Statements is everything. DDL- and DML-statements. Query is IMHO synonym
> > for DML-statement. So query_timeout is the right term.
>
> But the timeout is for any statement, not just SELECT/UPDATE, etc, so it
> sounds like you are voting for 'statement'.
No, I am voting for 'query'. I don't see the point in allowing a
timeout for utility statements. Why would someone want a timeout
on CREATE INDEX, COPY or VACUUM? Allowing that would IMHO be
calling for more trouble than necessary.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being
right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive
me. #
#==================================================
JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-11 14:06:36 | Re: workaround for lack of REPLACE() function |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-11 03:44:17 | Re: implementing query timeout |