Marc Cousin <cousinm...@gmail.com> wrote: > This time, it's this case that doesn't work : > I really feel that the timeout framework is the way to go here. Since Zoltán also seems to feel this way: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4c516c3a.6090...@cybertec.at I wonder whether this patch shouldn't be rejected with a request that the timeout framework be submitted to the next CF. Does anyone feel this approach (without the framework) should be pursued further? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
