| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, 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: | 2002-04-09 00:44:01 |
| Message-ID: | 3CB23951.BE9EA709@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > > > Why should the SET query_timeout = 0 command be issued
> > > > only when the query failed ? Is it a JDBC driver's requirement
> > > > or some applications' requirements which uses the JDBC driver ?
> > >
> > > They want the timeout for only the one statement, so they have to set it
> > > to non-zero before the statement, and to zero after the statement.
> >
> > Does setQueryTimeout() issue a corresponding SET QUERY_TIMEOUT
> > command immediately in the scenario ?
>
> Yes. If we don't make the SET rollback-able, we have to do all sorts of
> tricks in jdbc so aborted transactions get the proper SET value.
In my scenario, setQueryTimeout() only saves the timeout
value and issues the corrsponding SET QUERY_TIMEOUT command
immediately before each query if necessary.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-09 00:45:46 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Fernando Nasser | 2002-04-09 00:35:54 | Re: What's the CURRENT schema ? |