On 11/04/2015 01:55 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Joe Conway (mail@joeconway.com) wrote:
>> On 11/04/2015 01:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> I agree with Pavel. Having a transaction timeout just does not make any
>>> sense. I can see absolutely no use for it. An idle-in-transaction
>>> timeout, on the other hand, is very useful.
>>
>> +1 -- agreed
>
> I'm not sure of that. I can certainly see a use for transaction
> timeouts- after all, they hold locks and can be very disruptive in the
> long run. Further, there are cases where a transaction is normally very
> fast and in a corner case it becomes extremely slow and disruptive to
> the rest of the system. In those cases, having a timeout for it is
> valuable.
Yeah but anything holding a lock that long can be terminated via
statement_timeout can it not?
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
New rule for social situations: "If you think to yourself not even
JD would say this..." Stop and shut your mouth. It's going to be bad.
