"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

• Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout at 2007-04-03 01:59:29 from Joshua D. Drake

Responses

• Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout at 2007-04-03 02:36:18 from Joshua D. Drake

pgsql-hackers by date

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