Re: timeout implementation issues

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > > Why should the timeout be reset automatically ?
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't need to be reset automatically, but the problem is that if
> > > > you are doing a timeout for single statement in a transaction, and that
> > > > statement aborts the transaction, the SET command after it to reset the
> > > > timeout fails.
> > >
> > > As for ODBC, there's no state that *abort* but still inside
> > > a transaction currently.
> >
> > Yes, the strange thing is that SET inside a transaction _after_ the
> > transaction aborts is ignored, while SET before inside a transaction
> > before the transaction aborts is accepted.
>
> What I meant is there's no such problem with psqlodbc
> at least currently because the driver issues ROLLBACK
> automatically on abort inside a transaction.

If it does that, what happens with the rest of the queries in a
transaction? Do they get executed in their own transactions, or are
they somehow ignored.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026