From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de |
Cc: | ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com, david(at)fetter(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Statement timeout behavior in extended queries |
Date: | 2017-04-05 01:22:08 |
Message-ID: | 20170405.102208.330065229364054347.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> What's your point of the question? What kind of problem do you expect
>> if the timeout starts only once at the first parse meesage out of
>> bunch of parse messages?
>
> It's perfectly valid to send a lot of Parse messages without
> interspersed Sync or Bind/Execute message. There'll be one timeout
> covering all of those Parse messages, which can thus lead to a timeout,
> even though nothing actually takes long individually.
Hmm. IMO, that could happen even with the current statement timeout
implementation as well.
Or we could start/stop the timeout in exec_execute_message()
only. This could avoid the problem above. Also this is more consistent
with log_duration/log_min_duration_statement behavior than now.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-05 01:29:19 | Re: partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-04-05 01:17:44 | Re: ANALYZE command progress checker |