Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Sorry if I missed it in the original thread, but what is the use case
>> you have in mind?
> I think the bottom line is just that having statement_timeout a global setting
> is stupid for a variety of reasons (dump, restore, vacuum, locks, incidental
> delays) that we should discourage it (or prevent it, as proposed elsewhere)
> rather than working around it in countless individual places.
I'm not convinced that there's no use-case for global statement_timeout,
and even less convinced that there won't be anyone setting one anyway.
Unless we are prepared to somehow *prevent* such a setting from being
put in place, the proposed patch seems reasonable to me.
Unless you have a use-case in which it's actually desirable for the dump
or restore to fail. I'm having a tough time imagining one though.
regards, tom lane
