Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:19:04AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Could we get out of this by defining that "timeout" is
> > > automatically reset at next statement end?
> >
> > I was hoping to avoid that, because it seems like a wart. OTOH,
> > it'd be less of a wart than the global changes of semantics that
> > Bruce is proposing :-(
> >
> > How exactly would you make this happen? The simplest way I can think of
> > to do it (reset timeout in outer loop in postgres.c) would not work,
> > because it'd reset the timeout as soon as the SET statement completes.
> > How would you get the setting to survive for exactly one additional
> > statement?
>
> How about not messing with the SET, but adding it to the SELECT syntax
> itself? a "WITH TIMEOUT" clause?
Only SELECT? I thought all DML-statements should honour it.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
