Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joe Conway wrote:
>> I can't think of a reason to have sub-second values, but it's
>> probably not worth changing it at this point.
> Most queries are sub-second in duration so it seemed logical to keep it
> the same as deadlock_timeout.
And machines get faster all the time.
I'm not too concerned about resolution of a connection timeout, but
I think we want to be able to express small query timeouts.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
