[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > You realize that you are making conflicting requests, don't you? ;-) > More tests in less time! > > I ran the test in 15 minutes, which is less than what you are > experiencing, but I still think it is too much. I'll look into making > the test run faster. The problem is that it's hard to tune the size of > the tables so you're "guaranteed" that the fetching of some rows will > take longer than the timeout value. > > I'll also look at adding a testcase for the bug that this patch > addresses. >
Perhaps this is a silly idea, but would using a function in the query that had a sleep in it make this more predictable? 10 rows each with a sleep of 3 seconds guaranteed to take 30 seconds. Kathey
