|From:||'Andres Freund' <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, "david(at)fetter(dot)org" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Statement timeout behavior in extended queries|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2017-04-04 16:56:26 -0700, 'Andres Freund' wrote:
> On 2017-04-04 23:52:28 +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > From: Andres Freund [mailto:andres(at)anarazel(dot)de]
> > > Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs and
> > > npgsql doing it seems like some evidence that it's ok.
> > And psqlODBC now uses always libpq.
> > Now time for final decision?
> I'll send an updated patch in a bit, and then will wait till tomorrow to
> push. Giving others a chance to chime in seems fair.
Attached. I did not like that the previous patch had the timeout
handling duplicated in the individual functions, I instead centralized
it into start_xact_command(). Given that it already activated the
timeout in the most common cases, that seems to make more sense to
me. In your version we'd have called enable_statement_timeout() twice
consecutively (which behaviourally is harmless).
What do you think? I've not really tested this with the extended
protocol, so I'd appreciate if you could rerun your test from the
|Next Message||Tatsuo Ishii||2017-04-05 01:54:26||Re: Statement timeout behavior in extended queries|
|Previous Message||Robert Haas||2017-04-05 01:29:19||Re: partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql|