| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| 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 02:01:12 |
| Message-ID: | 53A395E8.1000200@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/19/2014 06:33 PM, 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.
>
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.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2014-06-20 03:24:35 | Re: Built-in support for a memory consumption ulimit? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-06-20 01:14:12 | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |