> On 2017-04-04 16:56:26 -0700, 'Andres Freund' wrote: >> On 2017-04-04 23:52:28 +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: >> > From: Andres Freund [mailto:and...@anarazel.de] >> > > Looks to me like npgsql doesn't do that either. None of libpq, pgjdbs >> > > and >> > > npgsql doing it seems like some evidence that it's ok. >> > >> > And psqlODBC now uses always libpq. >> > >> > Now time for final decision? >> >> I'll send an updated patch in a bit, and then will wait till tomorrow to >> push. Giving others a chance to chime in seems fair. > > Attached. I did not like that the previous patch had the timeout > handling duplicated in the individual functions, I instead centralized > it into start_xact_command(). Given that it already activated the > timeout in the most common cases, that seems to make more sense to > me. In your version we'd have called enable_statement_timeout() twice > consecutively (which behaviourally is harmless). > > What do you think? I've not really tested this with the extended > protocol, so I'd appreciate if you could rerun your test from the > older thread.
Ok, I will look into your patch and test it out using pgproto. Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
