Re: Transaction timeout

On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 at 21:05, Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> wrote:
>> On 30 Nov 2023, at 20:06, Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tomorrow I plan to fix raising of the timeout when the transaction is idle.
>> Renaming transaction_timeout to something else (to avoid confusion with prepared xacts) also seems correct to me.
>
>
> Here's a v6 version of the feature. Changes:
> 1. Now transaction_timeout will break connection with FATAL instead of hanging in "idle in transaction (aborted)"
> 2. It will kill equally idle and active transactions
> 3. New isolation tests are slightly more complex: isolation tester does not like when the connection is forcibly killed, thus there must be only 1 permutation with killed connection.
>

Greate. If idle_in_transaction_timeout is bigger than transaction_timeout,
the idle-in-transaction timeout don't needed, right?

> TODO: as Yuhang pointed out prepared transactions must not be killed, thus name "transaction_timeout" is not correct. I think the name must be like "session_transaction_timeout", but I'd like to have an opinion of someone more experienced in giving names to GUCs than me. Or, perhaps, a native speaker?
>
How about transaction_session_timeout? Similar to idle_session_timeout.

--
Regrads,
Japin Li
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co., Ltd.