> Other mainstream DBMS already have support for active statement and > idle session timeouts. I know no example of transaction timeout, though. I > think, transactions timeouts could bring more troubles than goods and in > many cases could be replaced by idle session timeouts. Therefore i offer to > omit transaction timeouts from further discussion (but i not insist).
I agree that transaction timeouts could be problematic and should be omitted from the initial timeout implementation. Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
