Re: timeout implementation issues

Tom Lane wrote:
> Note: I am now pretty well convinced that we *must* fix SET to roll back
> to start-of-transaction settings on transaction abort.  If we do that,
> at least some of the difficulty disappears for JDBC to handle one-shot
> timeouts by issuing SETs before and after the target query against a
> query_timeout variable that otherwise acts like a good-til-canceled
> setting.  Can we all compromise on that?
> 

This plan should work well for JDBC.  (It actually makes the code on the 
jdbc side pretty easy).

thanks,
--Barry