Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Or we don't have to reset the timeout at all. For example when we are about to issue a command, we can check if the requested timeout is different from the current server's timeout. We don't have to (re)set the timeout unless they are different. regards, Hiroshi Inoue ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
