Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Date
Msg-id 20140620011412.GT18688@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> > ISTM our realistic options are for seconds or msec as the unit.  If it's
> > msec, we'd be limited to INT_MAX msec or around 600 hours at the top end,
> > which seems like enough to me but maybe somebody thinks differently?
> > Seconds are probably OK but I'm worried about somebody complaining that
> > that's not enough resolution, especially as machines get faster.
> 
> I can picture a 500ms timeout more readily than I can picture a 1000hr
> timeout.

Agreed.  600 hours are upwards of 25 days.  Dead tuples accumulated for
that long would be a really serious problem, unless your database is
almost totally idle.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout