Thread: Re: [HACKERS] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al.

Re: [HACKERS] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al.

From
"Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Robert Haas  wrote:

> Is this a JDBC patch or a PG patch? Are we tracking JDBC patches
> using the CF app?

If this were the only patch for setQueryTimeout in front of us I
probably wouldn't have suggested that, but this thread started with a
patch proposal to implement the same JDBC feature through adding new
backend functions.  Unless that patch is withdrawn or rejected, it
seems odd for two different groups to be simultaneously considering
patches to implement exactly the same functionality....

-Kevin

Re: [HACKERS] Support for JDBC setQueryTimeout, et al.

From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Robert Haas  wrote:
>
>> Is this a JDBC patch or a PG patch? Are we tracking JDBC patches
>> using the CF app?
>
> If this were the only patch for setQueryTimeout in front of us I
> probably wouldn't have suggested that, but this thread started with a
> patch proposal to implement the same JDBC feature through adding new
> backend functions.  Unless that patch is withdrawn or rejected, it
> seems odd for two different groups to be simultaneously considering
> patches to implement exactly the same functionality....

True.  I thought we had decided on the client-side approach, but maybe
I'm confused.  I don't have a position one way or the other, just
trying to understand the state of the conversation.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company