| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, david(at)fetter(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org, rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu |
| Subject: | Re: [JDBC] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al. |
| Date: | 2010-10-14 21:57:37 |
| Message-ID: | 5526.1287093457@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I thought we had decided on the client-side approach, but maybe
>> I'm confused. I don't have a position one way or the other, just
>> trying to understand the state of the conversation.
> Well, I've been pretty vocal on supporting a client-side solution,
> and Rados*aw clearly is in that camp, but that hardly makes a
> consensus. David still has his patch out there, and Tom's comments
> seemed to imply that he supports a solution involving the
> statement_timeout GUC, so the question hardly seems settled.
No, no, I was trying to point out some reasons why depending on
statement_timeout would be problematic. I'm all for doing this
client-side.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-14 22:02:23 | Re: SQL command to edit postgresql.conf, with comments |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-14 21:53:30 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_filedump binary for CentOS |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Radosław Smogura | 2010-10-15 06:56:21 | Re: [JDBC] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al. |
| Previous Message | Radosław Smogura | 2010-10-14 18:40:57 | Re: [JDBC] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al. |