On 11/04/2015 01:55 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Joe Conway (mail(at)joeconway(dot)com) wrote:
>> On 11/04/2015 01:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> I agree with Pavel. Having a transaction timeout just does not make any
>>> sense. I can see absolutely no use for it. An idle-in-transaction
>>> timeout, on the other hand, is very useful.
>>
>> +1 -- agreed
>
> I'm not sure of that. I can certainly see a use for transaction
> timeouts- after all, they hold locks and can be very disruptive in the
> long run. Further, there are cases where a transaction is normally very
> fast and in a corner case it becomes extremely slow and disruptive to
> the rest of the system. In those cases, having a timeout for it is
> valuable.
I could see a use for both, having written scripts which do both.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com