Re: timeout implementation issues

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I am still looking for a constructive idea on how we can get this to
> > work, rather than calling my ideas "ridiculous".
> 
> We know very well how to make it work: JDBC can issue a SET timeout = 0
> after exiting the transaction.  You're proposing to change the semantics
> of SET into something quite bizarre in order to allow JDBC to not have
> to work as hard.  I think that's a bad tradeoff.

It that acceptable to the JDBC folks?  It requires two "SET timeout = 0"
statements, one after the statement in the transaction, and another
after the transaction COMMIT WORK.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026