| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Date: | 2014-06-23 02:03:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1403489012.1946.YahooMailNeo@web122306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
If we stick with the rule that what is to the left of _timeout is
what is being cancelled, the a GUC to cancel a transaction which
remains idle for too long could be called idle_transaction_timeout.
Do you disagree with the general idea of following that pattern?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G Johnston | 2014-06-23 02:45:08 | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Previous Message | Ian Barwick | 2014-06-23 01:26:01 | Re: tab completion for setting search_path |