>> If what Tatsuo-san said to Tom is correct (i.e. each Parse/Bind/Execute >> starts and stops the timer), then it's a concern and the patch should not be >> ready for committer. However, the current patch is not like that -- it >> seems to do what others in this thread are expecting. > > Oh, interesting - I kind of took the author's statement as, uh, > authoritative ;). A quick look over the patch confirms your > understanding.
Yes, Tsunakawa-san is correct. Sorry for confusion. > I think the code needs a few clarifying comments around this, but > otherwise seems good. Not restarting the timeout in those cases > obviously isn't entirely "perfect"/"correct", but a tradeoff - the > comments should note that. > > Tatsuo-san, do you want to change those, and push? I can otherwise. Andres, If you don't mind, could you please fix the comments and push it. > Unfortunately I can't move the patch back to the current CF, but I guess > we can just mark it as committed in the next. That will be great. Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
