| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Date: | 2014-06-20 01:14:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20140620011412.GT18688@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> > 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.
Agreed. 600 hours are upwards of 25 days. Dead tuples accumulated for
that long would be a really serious problem, unless your database is
almost totally idle.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-06-20 02:01:12 | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2014-06-20 00:52:23 | Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink |