Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

On 2014-06-21 11:23:44 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> > On 06/19/2014 06:33 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> >>> ISTM our realistic options are for seconds or msec as the unit.  If it's
> >>> msec, we'd be limited to INT_MAX msec or around 600 hours at the top end,
> >>> which seems like enough to me but maybe somebody thinks differently?
> >>> Seconds are probably OK but I'm worried about somebody complaining that
> >>> that's not enough resolution, especially as machines get faster.
> >> I can picture a 500ms timeout more readily than I can picture a 1000hr
> >> timeout.
> >
> > As long as we can specify the units, and don't have to say 1000 to mean
> > 1 second, I agree. I would normally expect this to be set in terms of
> > minutes rather than millisecs.
>
>
> OK, so I think we want to see a patch based on v1 (FATAL approach)
> with a change of the name to idle_in_transaction_session_timeout
> and the units changed to milliseconds.

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...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services