18.08.2016 10:14, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 18.08.2016 8:47, Vlad Khorsun wrote: >> What about 2500 ms ? :) >> If user fetch one record per hour - yes, > > 2500 ms is much less that an hour, you know...
Do you intentionally mixed timeouts set by DBA and by app developer or you really not understand what is for what ? >> such application should be better rewritten > > It will require to implement background fetch. Bad joke. >> DBA should decide what is more important for DB. Currently, DBA have no >> way to control. > > IMHO, in proposed form it won't have more control, because there will be > no sane range > of timeouts values that could be useful to kill wrong DMLs but let selects to > live. Global timeout set by DBA usually measured in tens of minutes or in hours. Are you advocate applications which could hold open cursor for a hours ? > I would suggest to apply the timeout to each single execute() and fetch() > call. This > way selects will have the same quotes as DML. It is wrong assumption. If cursor can't be fetched during global timeout then timeout is set wrong or application should be fixed. From the other side, it is impossible to guess correct timeout value in the case of never\randomly\rare fetched cursors so i don't care about it. If you going to say that statement timeouts is useless for such apps - i not object. Note, nobody forced to use it. Vlad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
