"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> So I think that complicating the design with, say, a timeout counter to
> force out the stats after a sleep interval is not necessary. Doing so would
> add a couple of kernel calls to every client interaction so I'd really
> rather avoid that.
> Any thoughts, better ideas?

If we want to have an idle_in_statement_timeout then we'll need to introduce a
select loop instead of just directly blocking on recv anyways. Does that mean
we may as well bite the bullet now?

  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to