Dear Horiguchi-san,
> I think we just don't need to add the special timeout kind to the
> core. postgres_fdw can use USER_TIMEOUT and it would be suffiction to
> keep running health checking regardless of transaction state then fire
> query cancel if disconnection happens. As I said in the previous main,
> possible extra query cancel woud be safe.
I finally figured out that you mentioned about user-defined timeout system.
Firstly - before posting to hackers - I designed like that,
but I was afraid of an overhead that many FDW registers timeout
and call setitimer() many times. Is it too overcautious?
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED