On 08/27/2014 08:05 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Yeah, something like that. I don't think it would be necessary to set
>> statement_timeout, you can inject that in your script or postgresql.conf if
>> you want. I don't think aborting a transaction that's already started is
>> necessary either. You could count it as LATE, but let it finish first.
>
> I've implemented something along these simplified lines. The latency is
> not limited as such, but slow (over the limit) queries are counted and
> reported.
Ok, thanks.
This now begs the question:
In --rate mode, shouldn't the reported transaction latency also be
calculated from the *scheduled* start time, not the time the transaction
actually started? Otherwise we're using two different definitions of
"latency", one for the purpose of the limit, and another for reporting.
- Heikki
