Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com> writes:
> My proposal, then, is that the Java driver should submit the
> transaction request; wait for the timeout; if it goes off, submit a
> cancel request; and then throw a SQLException. We would not handle
> this in the backend at all.
> Bruce agreed that this was a good point to ask what the rest of the
> hackers list thought. Any input?
I guess the $64 question is whether any frontends other than JDBC want
this behavior. If it's JDBC-only then I'd certainly vote for making
JDBC handle it ... but as soon as we see several different frontends
implementing similar behavior, I'd say it makes sense to implement it
once in the backend.
So, what's the market?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-03-30 05:16:36|
|Subject: Re: timeout implementation issues|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2002-03-30 01:57:34|
|Subject: Re: Ok, I lied about it working... TCP_NODELAY?|