| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu> |
| Subject: | RE: Timeout parameters |
| Date: | 2018-12-26 07:40:00 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.1812260835440.32444@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Ryohei,
>>>> 4. The client wants to close the connection while leaving the job to
>>>> the server.
>>>> In this case, "statement_timeout" can't satisfy at line 4.
>>
>> Why?
>> ISTM that "leaving the job" to the server with a client-side connection
>> closed is basically an abort, no different from what server-side
>> "statement_timeout" already provides?
> "while leaving the job to the server" means that "while the server continue the job".
> # Sorry for the inappropriate explanation.
> I understand that "statement_timeout" won't.
I still do not understand the use-case specifics: for me, aborting the
connection, or a softer cancelling the statement, will result in the
server stopping the statement, so the server does NOT "continue the job",
so I still do not see how it really differs from the server-side
statement_timeout setting.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-12-26 08:20:55 | Re: chained transactions |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2018-12-26 07:35:21 | Re: Problems with plan estimates in postgres_fdw |