Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(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 11:35:19
Message-ID: 20140623113519.GR16260@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-06-23 13:33:46 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 06/22/2014 07:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2014-06-22 09:27:24 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > but I don't like that much. Not sure what'd be good, the best I
> > currently can come up with is:
> > idle_in_transaction_termination_timeout =
> > idle_in_transaction_cancellation_timeout =
>
> Except the transaction wouldn't be cancelled, it would be aborted.

That ship has sailed with pg_cancel_backend(), no?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gurjeet Singh 2014-06-23 12:15:17 Re: review: Non-recursive processing of AND/OR lists
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-06-23 11:34:35 Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout