| From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jan Wieck" <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jessica Perry Hekman" <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, "Barry Lind" <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-06 09:14:53 |
| Message-ID: | EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJKEFJHGAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane
>
> Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > Could we get out of this by defining that "timeout" is
> > automatically reset at next statement end?
>
> I was hoping to avoid that, because it seems like a wart. OTOH,
> it'd be less of a wart than the global changes of semantics that
> Bruce is proposing :-(
Probably I'm misunderstanding this thread.
Why must the query_timeout be reset particularly ?
What's wrong with simply issueing set query_timeout
command just before every query ?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-06 10:41:44 | Re: RFC: Restructuring pg_aggregate |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2002-04-06 09:14:45 | Re: What's the CURRENT schema ? |