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.
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
