Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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: 2014-06-19 22:33:07
Message-ID: 53A36523.4090700@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message MauMau 2014-06-19 22:38:06 Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-06-19 22:18:40 Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout