| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-01 18:00:19 |
| Message-ID: | 5599.1017684019@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> ... It will be tricky to manage multiple
> alarms in a single process, but it can be done by creating an alarm
> queue.
I would argue that we should only support *one* kind of timeout, either
transaction-level or statement-level, so as to avoid that complexity.
I don't want to see us gilding the lily in the first implementation of
something that IMHO is of dubious usefulness in the first place.
We can think about extending the facility later, when and if it proves
sufficiently useful to justify more complexity.
I don't have a very strong feeling about whether transaction-level or
statement-level is more useful; am willing to do whichever one the
JDBC spec wants.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jessica Perry Hekman | 2002-04-01 18:12:02 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-01 17:50:52 | Re: RI triggers and schemas |