| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(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 10:48:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20140623104807.GO16260@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-06-22 19:03:32 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> 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?
I think that'd be rather confusing. For one it'd need to be
idle_in_transaction_timeout which already seems less clear (because the
transaction belongs to idle) and for another that distinction seems to
be to subtle for users.
The reason I suggested
idle_in_transaction_termination/cancellation_timeout is that that maps
nicely to pg_terminate/cancel_backend() and is rather descriptive.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2014-06-23 10:51:53 | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-06-23 10:15:39 | Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL |