Robert Haas wrote: Kevin Grittner wrote: > I thought we had decided on the client-side approach, but maybe > I'm confused. I don't have a position one way or the other, just > trying to understand the state of the conversation. Well, I've been pretty vocal on supporting a client-side solution, and Rados*aw clearly is in that camp, but that hardly makes a consensus. David still has his patch out there, and Tom's comments seemed to imply that he supports a solution involving the statement_timeout GUC, so the question hardly seems settled. Regarding JDBC in the CF process -- other interfaces are handled there. I haven't seen one patch this size for JDBC since I've been involved, let alone two competing patches to implement the same feature. Small patches which can be quickly handled don't make sense to put into the process, but it seemed reasonable for these. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
