Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

>
>
> >>>
> >>> I think that'd be rather confusing. For one it'd need to be
> >>> idle_in_transaction_timeout
>
> Why? We're cancelling an idle transaction, not an "idle in
> transaction", whatever that is.
>
>
​The confusion derives from the fact we are affecting a session whose state
is "idle in transaction", not one that is idle. We are then, for this
discussion, choosing to either kill the entire session or just the
currently active transaction. After "idle_in_transaction" there is an
unstated "session" being mentally placed by myself and probably others.
Following that is then either "session" or "transaction" to denote what is
being affected should the timeout interval come to pass.

Discarding that, probably flawed, mental model makes
"idle_transaction_timeout" seem fine.
"idle_in_transaction_session_timeout" would indeed be a natural complement
to this.​

I do not expect this concept, should it come to pass, to be that difficult
to document or for someone to learn.

Along with other I still see no reason to avoid "IIT_session_timeout" at
this point.

David J.

--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/idle-in-transaction-timeout-tp5805859p5808471.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.