| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
| Cc: | adnandursun(at)asrinbilisim(dot)com(dot)tr, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
| Date: | 2005-05-02 04:14:43 |
| Message-ID: | 4275A933.1050608@samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Oliver Jowett wrote:
> I raised this a while back on -hackers:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-02/msg00397.php
>
> but did not get much feedback.
Perhaps you can interpret silence as consent? :)
> Does anyone have comments on that email?
I wouldn't be opposed to it. It would be different than
statement_timeout, in that we'd be measuring transaction *idle* time,
not total transaction runtime, so perhaps "transaction_idle_timeout" is
a better name than "transaction_timeout". Also, presumably when the
transaction idle timeout fires, we should just rollback the current
transaction, not close the client connection -- so you could potentially
have idle backends sticking around for the full TCP timeout period.
Since they shouldn't be holding any locks I don't see that as a big problem.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-02 04:25:33 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2005-05-02 04:08:39 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-02 04:25:33 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2005-05-02 04:08:39 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |