Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Joe Conway wrote:
>> I can't think of a reason to have sub-second values, but it's
>> probably not worth changing it at this point.
> Most queries are sub-second in duration so it seemed logical to keep it
> the same as deadlock_timeout.
And machines get faster all the time.
I'm not too concerned about resolution of a connection timeout, but
I think we want to be able to express small query timeouts.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-09-26 04:02:49|
|Subject: Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-09-26 04:00:10|
|Subject: Re: postmaster -d option (was Re: [GENERAL] Relation 0 does not exist) |