Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout
Date: 2007-04-03 02:29:21
Message-ID: 14139.1175567361@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Added to TODO:
>> * Add idle_timeout GUC so locks are not held for log periods of time

> That should actually be transaction_idle_timeout. It is o.k. for us to 
> be IDLE... it is not o.k. for us to be IDLE in Transaction

Or "idle_in_transaction_timeout"?  Anyway I agree that using
"idle_timeout" for this is unwise.  We've been asked often enough for a
flat-out idle timeout (ie kill session after X seconds of no client
interaction), and while I disagree with the concept, someday we might
cave and implement it.  We should reserve the name for the behavior
that people would expect a parameter named like that to have.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2007-04-03 02:36:18
Subject: Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-03 02:23:57
Subject: Re: Modifying TOAST thresholds

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group