Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Can we, can we, can we????... |
---|---|
Author | Jim Starkey |
Post date | 2005-06-13T13:56:20Z |
Martijn Tonies wrote:
further with this:
1. Is a timeout more important or better than a mechanism to identify
and kill runaway requests?
2. How exactly are we going to track execution time of a request?
3. What are the implications on system performance in tracking and
probing request execution time?
--
Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376
>>>A "remote query" - as far as I know - is a query ran againstThere are a few questions that must be answered before we go much
>>>a "linked server", albeit any ADO or ODBC source as well as
>>>
>>>
>><SNIPPED/>
>>
>>
>>
>>>send to SQL Server.
>>>
>>>
>>With all that in mind; I'll change my suggestion from:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>Do what SQL Server does, raise a 'Timed Out.' exception
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>To:
>>
>>Just raise a 'Timed Out.' exception
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>
>
>Very well :-D :-D
>
>
>Next, should this be:
>
>1) a server configurable option?
>
>2) a database configurable option?
>
>3) a connection configurable option?
>
>4) all of the above?
>
>
>Is the database owner affected? How about SYSDBA? (think of backup, for
>example)
>
>
>
further with this:
1. Is a timeout more important or better than a mechanism to identify
and kill runaway requests?
2. How exactly are we going to track execution time of a request?
3. What are the implications on system performance in tracking and
probing request execution time?
--
Jim Starkey
Netfrastructure, Inc.
978 526-1376