On 2014-06-22 19:03:32 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> 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?
I think that'd be rather confusing. For one it'd need to be
idle_in_transaction_timeout which already seems less clear (because the
transaction belongs to idle) and for another that distinction seems to
be to subtle for users.
The reason I suggested
idle_in_transaction_termination/cancellation_timeout is that that maps
nicely to pg_terminate/cancel_backend() and is rather descriptive.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
