Oliver Jowett wrote:
> I raised this a while back on -hackers:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-02/msg00397.php
>
> but did not get much feedback.
Perhaps you can interpret silence as consent? :)
> Does anyone have comments on that email?
I wouldn't be opposed to it. It would be different than
statement_timeout, in that we'd be measuring transaction *idle* time,
not total transaction runtime, so perhaps "transaction_idle_timeout" is
a better name than "transaction_timeout". Also, presumably when the
transaction idle timeout fires, we should just rollback the current
transaction, not close the client connection -- so you could potentially
have idle backends sticking around for the full TCP timeout period.
Since they shouldn't be holding any locks I don't see that as a big problem.
-Neil
