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
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 |