On 11/05/2015 10:48 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > S > t C > a<-------------<transaction>--------------->E > r A B A B A n > t <idle> <stmt> <idle> <stmt> <idle> d > |--------======--------======---------------| > > Currently we can set timeout and cancel for period B (<stmt>). I can see > based on this discussion that there are legitimate use cases for wanting > timeout and cancel for any of the periods A, B, or C. > > I guess the question then becomes how we provide that coverage. I think > for coverage of timeout you need three individual timeout settings. > However for cancel, it would seem that pg_cancel_transaction would cover > all three cases. > > > It can be difficult to set it properly, because you don't know how much > statements (cycles of A.B) will be in transaction. Respective for > setting C, I have to know the number of A,B and it isn't possible everytime.
But you might have a limit you want to enforce regardless of the size or quantity of A & B periods. That's why it needs to be a separate timeout IMHO. Let's say I never want a transaction to be around more than 60 minutes no matter what. But I also don't want idle in transaction to ever exceed 30 seconds, and I don't expect individual statements to exceed 10 minutes.
I am not sure due my wrong English if we are in agreement or not, I am sorry :/ - Any mentioned timeouts are useful and covers little bit different issues - and we need all.
Regards
Pavel
Joe
-- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
