Marc Cousin <cousinmarc@gmail.com> wrote:
> This time, it's this case that doesn't work :
> I really feel that the timeout framework is the way to go here.
Since Zoltán also seems to feel this way:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4C516C3A.6090102@cybertec.at
I wonder whether this patch shouldn't be rejected with a request
that the timeout framework be submitted to the next CF. Does anyone
feel this approach (without the framework) should be pursued
further?
-Kevin
