Re: BUG #14821: idle_in_transaction_session_timeout sometimes gets ignored when statement timeout is pending

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 2017-09-21 01:09:56 +0000, lukas(at)fittl(dot)com wrote:
> > It seems to me that ProcessInterrupts() should check for the idle in
> > transaction timeout first, since it short-circuits and returns early if
> > QueryCancelPending && QueryCancelHoldoffCount != 0 before even getting
> > there.
>
> Indeed - although I wonder if the correct fix isn't to move things
> around, but to instead avoid the order dependency changing the short
> circuit logic so that there's no early return. Like e.g.
>
> if (QueryCancelPending && QueryCancelHoldoffCount != 0)
> {
> /* rearm */
> }
> else if (QueryCancelPending)
> {
> /* handle interrupt */
> }
>
> there's really no good reason for the return right now, and it's bound
> to create more bugs in the future.

That seems like a reasonable approach and a good idea.

I'll take a stab at making a patch for this tonight and send it over to
hackers then.

Best,
Lukas

--
Lukas Fittl

Skype: lfittl
Phone: +1 415 321 0630