| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Date: | 2014-06-22 16:27:24 |
| Message-ID: | 1403454444.6522.YahooMailNeo@web122305.mail.ne1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-22 17:47:43 | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-22 15:58:04 | Re: tab completion for setting search_path |