>>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:59 AM, in message
<e9a628e9-fa81-44a8-a49b-7b9efc235875@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
valgog
<valgog@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 12:28 pm, bo...@ejurka.com (Kris Jurka) wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, valgog wrote:
>> > Is it possible to implement the setStatementTimeout() as somethig
>> > like:
>>
>> > s = c.prepareStatement("SELECT set_config('statement_timeout',
>> > <neededTimeoutInMilliseconds>, false);" );
>> > s.executeQuery();
>> > c.commit();
>>
>> Not really. This sets a global timeout for all queries while the
JDBC API
>> specifies that it is per-Statement. Also this only protects against
long
>> running queries. Recently there was some discussion on the JDBC
list
>> about soft vs hard timeouts and it seemed the conclusion was that
people
>> wanted setQueryTimeout to protect against things like the network
>> connection dropping that statement_timeout can't do.
>>
>> In many cases statement_timeout is an adequate substitute for
>> setQueryTimeout, but not in the general case that the JDBC driver
must
>> implement.
>
> Ok, understood...
It's not too hard to create a monitor thread which issues a
Statement.cancel after the appropriate interval. We have that option
built into our framework; if you route all your SQL requests through
some such layer you could do it there. I assume that the only reason
it hasn't been implemented in the JDBC driver for PostgreSQL is that
there seems to be a reluctance to create any threads in the driver,
but rather to use the thread of the requester. Is that a hard and
fast rule?
-Kevin