On 2017-04-04 16:10:32 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > >> 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.
Hm. I started to edit it, but I'm halfway coming back to my previous view that this isn't necessarily ready. If a client were to to prepare a large number of prepared statements (i.e. a lot of parse messages), this'll only start the timeout once, at the first statement sent. It's not an issue for libpq which sends a sync message after each PQprepare, nor does it look to be an issue for pgjdbc based on a quick look. Does anybody think there might be a driver out there that sends a bunch of 'parse' messages, without syncs? - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers