Marc Cousin <[email protected]> wrote: > This time, it's this case that doesn't work : > I really feel that the timeout framework is the way to go here. Since Zoltán also seems to feel this way: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected] I wonder whether this patch shouldn't be rejected with a request that the timeout framework be submitted to the next CF. Does anyone feel this approach (without the framework) should be pursued further? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
