Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

2014-06-22 19:47 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:

> On 2014-06-22 09:27:24 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > The idea with the GUC name is that if we ever get support for
> > > cancelling transactions we can name that
> > > idle_in_transaction_transaction_timeout?
> > > That seems a bit awkward...
> >
> > No, the argument was that for all the other *_timeout settings what
> > came before _timeout was the thing that was being terminated. I
> > think there were some votes in favor of the name on that basis, and
> > none against. Feel free to give your reasons for supporting some
> > other name.
>
> My reasons for not liking the current GUC name are hinted at above. I think
> we'll want a version of this that just fails the transaction once we
> have the infrastructure. So we should choose a name that allows for
> a complimentary GUC.
> CAKFQuwZCg2uur=tUdz_C2aUwBo87ofFGhn9Mx_HZ4QD-b8fe2Q(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
> suggested
> On 2014-06-19 10:39:48 -0700, David G Johnston wrote:
> > "idle_in_transaction_timeout=10s"
> > "idle_in_transaction_target=session|transaction"
>
> but I don't like that much. Not sure what'd be good, the best I
> currently can come up with is:
> idle_in_transaction_termination_timeout =
> idle_in_transaction_cancellation_timeout =
>

+1

Pavel

>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>
> --
> Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>