| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions |
| Date: | 2015-11-04 14:42:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCJ9yc86-qwC4XfLR6Gh4vXDsF6os8_HmOZ-D7ZopinEQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Okay, I think one more point to consider is that it would be preferable to
> > have such an option for backend sessions and not for other processes
> > like WalSender.
>
> All right...I see the usage.. I withdraw my objection to 'session'
> prefix then now that I understand the case. So, do you agree that:
>
> *) session_idle_timeout: dumps the backend after X time in 'idle' state
> and
> *) transaction_timeout: cancels transaction after X time, regardless of
> state
>
> sounds good?
>
Not too much
*) transaction_timeout: cancels transaction after X time, regardless of
state
This is next level of statement_timeout. I can't to image sense. What is a
issue solved by this property?
Pavel
>
> merlin
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2015-11-04 14:50:16 | Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-11-04 14:40:10 | Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions |