On 2014-06-22 09:27:24 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > The idea with the GUC name is that if we ever get support for > > cancelling transactions we can name that > > idle_in_transaction_transaction_timeout? > > That seems a bit awkward... > > No, the argument was that for all the other *_timeout settings what > came before _timeout was the thing that was being terminated. I > think there were some votes in favor of the name on that basis, and > none against. Feel free to give your reasons for supporting some > other name.
My reasons for not liking the current GUC name are hinted at above. I think we'll want a version of this that just fails the transaction once we have the infrastructure. So we should choose a name that allows for a complimentary GUC. CAKFQuwZCg2uur=tUdz_C2aUwBo87ofFGhn9Mx_HZ4QD-b8fe2Q@mail.gmail.com suggested On 2014-06-19 10:39:48 -0700, David G Johnston wrote: > "idle_in_transaction_timeout=10s" > "idle_in_transaction_target=session|transaction"
but I don't like that much. Not sure what'd be good, the best I currently can come up with is: idle_in_transaction_termination_timeout = idle_in_transaction_cancellation_timeout =
+1
Pavel
Greetings,
Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
