Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Added to TODO:
>>> * Add idle_timeout GUC so locks are not held for log periods of time
>
>> That should actually be transaction_idle_timeout. It is o.k. for us to
>> be IDLE... it is not o.k. for us to be IDLE in Transaction
>
> Or "idle_in_transaction_timeout"?

Yeah that would work and it is what I originally typed before
backspacing. I was trying to avoid the _in_ but either way.

> Anyway I agree that using
> "idle_timeout" for this is unwise. We've been asked often enough for a
> flat-out idle timeout (ie kill session after X seconds of no client
> interaction), and while I disagree with the concept, someday we might

Well I agree that we shouldn't kill sessions just because they are idle,
I can imagine all the lovely... my pgpool sessions keep getting killed!
comments.

> cave and implement it. We should reserve the name for the behavior
> that people would expect a parameter named like that to have.

Agreed.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> regards, tom lane
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/