Tom Lane wrote: > Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Could we get out of this by defining that "timeout" is > > automatically reset at next statement end? > > I was hoping to avoid that, because it seems like a wart. OTOH, > it'd be less of a wart than the global changes of semantics that > Bruce is proposing :-( > > How exactly would you make this happen? The simplest way I can think of > to do it (reset timeout in outer loop in postgres.c) would not work, > because it'd reset the timeout as soon as the SET statement completes. > How would you get the setting to survive for exactly one additional > statement?
Sure, you could reset it, but there are going to be cases where you want to do a timeout=6000 for the entire session. If it resets after the first statement, this is hard to do. -- 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
