On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:34 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> In general I think the threshold problem for a patch like this will be
> "how do you keep the added overhead down". As Robert noted upthread,
> timeout.c is quite a bit shy of being able to handle timeouts that
> persist across statements. I don't think that there's any fundamental
> reason it can't be improved, but it will need improvements.
Why do we need that? If we're not executing a statement, we're
probably trying to read() from the socket, and we'll notice if that
returns 0 or -1. So it seems like we only need periodic checks while
there's a statement in progress.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
