Dear Horiguchi-san, > I think we just don't need to add the special timeout kind to the > core. postgres_fdw can use USER_TIMEOUT and it would be suffiction to > keep running health checking regardless of transaction state then fire > query cancel if disconnection happens. As I said in the previous main, > possible extra query cancel woud be safe.
I finally figured out that you mentioned about user-defined timeout system. Firstly - before posting to hackers - I designed like that, but I was afraid of an overhead that many FDW registers timeout and call setitimer() many times. Is it too overcautious? Best Regards, Hayato Kuroda FUJITSU LIMITED
