Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

On 2014-06-22 09:27:24 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> 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.

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(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)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 =

Greetings,

Andres Freund

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