On 11/04/2015 02:07 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 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?
That is exactly what I was thinking
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
