Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group