>> 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
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.
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.
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: