| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Date: | 2014-06-24 17:25:41 |
| Message-ID: | 53A9B495.6000500@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/24/2014 07:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, has anyone thought about the interaction of this feature with
> prepared transactions? I wonder whether there shouldn't be a similar but
> separately-settable maximum time for a transaction to stay in the prepared
> state. If we could set a nonzero default on that, perhaps on the order of
> a few minutes, we could solve the ancient bugaboo that "prepared
> transactions are too dangerous to enable by default".
I did not think about that, but I could probably cook up a patch for it.
I don't believe it belongs in this patch, though.
--
Vik
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2014-06-24 17:27:29 | Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-24 17:22:08 | Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures |