Re: Statement timeout in pg_rewind

From: Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Statement timeout in pg_rewind
Date: 2019-08-26 13:42:46
Message-ID: CAFh8B==mM_hCbVCo5BFfhzzxa-e6iHoOvAJcgxeT9zQorxZtjQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 06:28, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> Alexander, it seems to me that we should also consider lock_timeout
> and idle_in_transaction_session_timeout (new as of 9.6), no? We could

Well, I was thinking about it and came to the conclusion that we are
neither taking heavy locks nor explicitly opening a transaction and
therefore we can avoid changing them.
But maybe you are right, having them set to the safe value shouldn't hurt.

> also group the PQexec/PQresultStatus into a simple wrapper which gets
> also called by run_simple_query().

I don't think we can use the same wrapper for run_simple_query() and
for places where we call a SET, because PQresultStatus() returns
PGRES_TUPLES_OK and PGRES_COMMAND_OK respectively.
Passing expected ExecStatusType to the wrapper for comparison is
looking a bit ugly to me.

Regards,
--
Alexander Kukushkin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ROS Didier 2019-08-26 14:10:37 PostgreSQL and TLS 1.2
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2019-08-26 13:29:04 Re: subscriptionCheck failures on nightjar