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.
Or we don't have to reset the timeout at all.
For example when we are about to issue a command, we
can check if the requested timeout is different from
the current server's timeout. We don't have to (re)set
the timeout unless they are different.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
