Re: timeout implementation issues

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: timeout implementation issues
Date: 2002-04-18 23:56:13
Message-ID: 8382.1019174173@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I don't think this is *all* *should be* or *all
> or nothing* kind of thing. If a SET variable has
> its reason, it would behave in its own right.

Well, we could provide some kind of escape hatch to let the behavior
vary from one variable to the next. But can you give any specific
examples? Which SET variables should not roll back on error?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-04-19 00:00:17 Re: Schema (namespace) privilege details
Previous Message Hiroshi Inoue 2002-04-18 23:53:02 Re: timeout implementation issues