Re: timeout implementation issues

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: timeout implementation issues
Date: 2002-03-30 04:36:39
Message-ID: 970.1017462999@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com> writes:
> [snip]
> 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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-03-30 05:16:36 Re: timeout implementation issues
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-03-30 01:57:34 Re: Ok, I lied about it working... TCP_NODELAY?