Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Date
Msg-id 1403489012.1946.YahooMailNeo@web122306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> I think we'll want a version of this that just fails the
> transaction once we have the infrastructure. So we should choose
> a name that allows for a complimentary GUC.

If we stick with the rule that what is to the left of _timeout is
what is being cancelled, the a GUC to cancel a transaction which
remains idle for too long could be called idle_transaction_timeout.

Do you disagree with the general idea of following that pattern?

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ian Barwick
Date:
Subject: Re: tab completion for setting search_path
Next
From: David G Johnston
Date:
Subject: Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout