On 24-2-2017 07:42, Jiří Činčura wrote: >> PS Last try to convince you: imagine application which set timeout to 10 >> sec, run some query and fetching results. >> With current implementation it is expected that query will be cancelled >> in a 10 sec after execution starts. >> With you offer it is impossible to guess when it will be cancelled. > > Without thinking about the internals and logic, I would - intuitively - > expect what Sean is describing. The timeout should be based on "working" > time, not elapsed. At least that's what we would use - prevent some > stupid queries to run. These queries do not often produce a lot of rows, > just a few, but take a long time to process. > > The fetching time included seems to be skewed by network latency, > application logic (do I fetch all at once into, i.e. array or process > one by one), although thinking about your implementation I see what you > aimed for. >
I agree, I do think fetch time should be included, but not the time the engine is waiting for the next fetch. Mark -- Mark Rotteveel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
