Subject | Re: Can we, can we, can we????... |
---|---|
Author | johnson_dave2003 |
Post date | 2005-06-15T17:45:56Z |
--- In Firebird-Architect@yahoogroups.com, "Dmitry Yemanov"
<dimitr@u...> wrote:
socket. Bad me. (smack)
Embedded is a different beast. Users expect finer control of cancel
logic.
<dimitr@u...> wrote:
> "johnson_dave2003" <d_johnson@c...> wrote:at
> >
> > If the the kill is implemented as Jim suggested, where a broken
> > connection terminates the query, then timeout can be implemented
> > the client side as a socket timeout. This put timeout under theOops! I tend to think of a database conection as always through a
> > control of the application.
>
> What about embedded (and perhaps IPC) connections?
socket. Bad me. (smack)
Embedded is a different beast. Users expect finer control of cancel
logic.
>(less
> > A DBA monitor/kill is a prime example of a use for a memory only
> > table. Relatively few queries are likely to run concurrently
> > than a few thousand), the overheads of writing to DASD aredefinitely
> > not desired, and if the server dies the data is garbage.I'll have a look at these past discussions.
>
> It has already been discussed last year in fb-devel.
>
>
> Dmitry