On 2017-04-05 08:34:43 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Andres,
>
> >> I think the code needs a few clarifying comments around this, but
> >> otherwise seems good. Not restarting the timeout in those cases
> >> obviously isn't entirely "perfect"/"correct", but a tradeoff - the
> >> comments should note that.
> >>
> >> Tatsuo-san, do you want to change those, and push? I can otherwise.
> >
> > Andres,
> >
> > If you don't mind, could you please fix the comments and push it.
>
> I have changed the comments as you suggested. If it's ok, I can push
> the patch myself (today I have time to work on this).
I'm working on the patch, and I've edited it more heavily, so please
hold off.
Changes:
I don't think the debugging statements are a good idea, the
!xact_started should be an assert, and disable_timeout should be called
from within enable_statement_timeout independent of stmt_timer_started.
But more importantly I had just sent a question that I think merits
discussion.
- Andres
