Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Date
Msg-id 53A36523.4090700@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Next
From: "MauMau"
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink