Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I am still looking for a constructive idea on how we can get this to
> > work, rather than calling my ideas "ridiculous".
>
> We know very well how to make it work: JDBC can issue a SET timeout = 0
> after exiting the transaction. You're proposing to change the semantics
> of SET into something quite bizarre in order to allow JDBC to not have
> to work as hard. I think that's a bad tradeoff.
It that acceptable to the JDBC folks? It requires two "SET timeout = 0"
statements, one after the statement in the transaction, and another
after the transaction COMMIT WORK.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
