Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> What is the feedback on this patch? Is there anything I need to do to
> get it into the next commit fest?

Yes, go add it to the wiki page ;-):
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:May

I agree that we should do that, but the thread on -hackers ("Autovacuum
vs statement_timeout") wasn't totally conclusive. Greg Sabine Mullane
and Peter Eisentraut argued that we shouldn't, but neither provided a
plausible use case where a statement_timeout on restoring a dump would
be useful. I'm thinking we should apply the patch unless someone comes
up with one.

To quote Tom:
> I think we need to be careful to distinguish three situations:
>
> * statement_timeout during pg_dump
> * statement_timeout during pg_restore
> * statement_timeout during psql reading a pg_dump script file

This patch addresses the third situation, but leaves open the 1st and
the 2nd. IMO, we should set statement_timeout = 0 in them as well,
unless someone comes up with plausible use case for using a non-zero
statement_timeout.

Ps. If you want to save the committer a couple of minutes of valuable
time, you can fix the indentation to use tabs instead of spaces, and
remove the spurious whitespace change on the empty line.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers