Re: timeout implementation issues

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>

To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman@dynamicdiagrams.com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>, Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>, Barry Lind <barry@xythos.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2002-04-08T15:32:50Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > I consider SET variables metadata that are not affected by transactions.
> Why?  Again, the fact that historically they've not acted that way isn't
> sufficient reason for me.

Hmm. Historically, SET controls behaviors *out of band* with the normal
transaction mechanisms. There is strong precedent for this mechanism
*because it is a useful concept*, not simply because it has always been
done this way.

*If* some aspects of SET take on transactional behavior, then this
should be *in addition to* the current global scope for those commands.

What problem are we trying to solve with this? The topic came up in a
discussion on implementing timeouts for JDBC. afaik it has not come up
*in any context* for the last seven years, so maybe we should settle
down a bit and refocus on the problem at hand...

                     - Thomas