| From: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 邱宇航 <iamqyh(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Transaction timeout |
| Date: | 2023-12-07 12:40:34 |
| Message-ID: | 145F4741-008A-41BF-AE06-1BE1435DFB1A@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 7 Dec 2023, at 06:25, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> If idle_in_transaction_timeout is bigger than transaction_timeout,
> the idle-in-transaction timeout don't needed, right?
Yes, I think so.
>
>> TODO: as Yuhang pointed out prepared transactions must not be killed, thus name "transaction_timeout" is not correct. I think the name must be like "session_transaction_timeout", but I'd like to have an opinion of someone more experienced in giving names to GUCs than me. Or, perhaps, a native speaker?
>>
> How about transaction_session_timeout? Similar to idle_session_timeout.
Well, Yuhang also suggested this name...
Honestly, I still have a gut feeling that transaction_timeout is a good name, despite being not exactly precise.
Thanks!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
PS Sorry for posting twice to the same thread, i noticed your message only after answering to Yuhang's review.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2023-12-07 12:49:15 | Re: Memory consumed by paths during partitionwise join planning |
| Previous Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2023-12-07 12:35:23 | Re: Transaction timeout |