Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

On 06/22/2014 07:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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 =

Except the transaction wouldn't be cancelled, it would be aborted.

idle_in_transaction_abortion_timeout seems a little... weird.
--
Vik