Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> writes:
> I am still looking for a constructive idea on how we can get this to
> work, rather than calling my ideas "ridiculous".
We know very well how to make it work: JDBC can issue a SET timeout = 0
after exiting the transaction. You're proposing to change the semantics
of SET into something quite bizarre in order to allow JDBC to not have
to work as hard. I think that's a bad tradeoff.
regards, tom lane
