Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

> On 06/19/2014 06:33 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:

>>> ISTM our realistic options are for seconds or msec as the unit.  If it's
>>> msec, we'd be limited to INT_MAX msec or around 600 hours at the top end,
>>> which seems like enough to me but maybe somebody thinks differently?
>>> Seconds are probably OK but I'm worried about somebody complaining that
>>> that's not enough resolution, especially as machines get faster.
>> I can picture a 500ms timeout more readily than I can picture a 1000hr
>> timeout.
>
> As long as we can specify the units, and don't have to say 1000 to mean
> 1 second, I agree. I would normally expect this to be set in terms of
> minutes rather than millisecs.

OK, so I think we want to see a patch based on v1 (FATAL approach)
with a change of the name to idle_in_transaction_session_timeout
and the units changed to milliseconds.  I don't see why the
remoteversion test shouldn't be changed to use 90500 now, too.

I'll flip this to Waiting on Author for those changes.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company