Re: timeout implementation issues

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: timeout implementation issues
Date: 2002-04-07 02:15:50
Message-ID: 200204070215.g372FoE02845@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > We do have on_shmem_exit and on_proc_exit function call queues. Seems
> > we will need SET to create a queue of function calls containing previous
> > values of variables SEt in multi-statement transactions. If we execute
> > the queue in last-in-first-out order, the variables will be restored
> > properly.
>
> That's most certainly the hard way. I was planning to just make GUC
> save a spare copy of the start-of-transaction value of each variable.

Ewe, I was hoping for something with zero overhead for the non-SET case.
Can we trigger the save for the first SET in the transaction?

--
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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-04-07 02:20:39 Re: timeout implementation issues
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-07 02:14:36 Re: timeout implementation issues