Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> 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?
If we wanted such a timeout (which I personally don't) we wouldn't
implement it with select because OpenSSL wouldn't cooperate. AFAICS
this'd require setting a timer interrupt ... and then unsetting it when
the client response comes back.
regards, tom lane