Tom Lane wrote:
> Note: I am now pretty well convinced that we *must* fix SET to roll back
> to start-of-transaction settings on transaction abort. If we do that,
> at least some of the difficulty disappears for JDBC to handle one-shot
> timeouts by issuing SETs before and after the target query against a
> query_timeout variable that otherwise acts like a good-til-canceled
> setting. Can we all compromise on that?
>
This plan should work well for JDBC. (It actually makes the code on the
jdbc side pretty easy).
thanks,
--Barry
