Kevin Grittner wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > why would we do this client-side rather than server-side? > > Because the timeout is supposed to be a limit on the time allowed > for specific Java methods to complete, which might be running a > large number of SQL statements within one invocation, and which may > include significant network latency. It's a lot of work to get > "pretty close" on the server side, and you can never really > implement exactly what the JDBC API is requesting. > > What if you have an app which can draw data from any of a number of > remote databases, and you want to use this limit so if one becomes > unavailable for some reason you can re-run the request on another > within a reasonable time? The network connection goes down after > you submit your request, you've got a period of minutes or hours > until TCP gives up, and the user expects a response within a few > seconds... > > If you implement something with server-side semantics, there's > nothing to prevent an application which is PostgreSQL-aware from > accessing it through JDBC, of course. statement_timeout and other > GUCs can be set locally to your heart's content.
OK, thanks. Just had to ask. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
