> On 7 Dec 2023, at 06:25, Japin Li <japi...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > If idle_in_transaction_timeout is bigger than transaction_timeout, > the idle-in-transaction timeout don't needed, right? Yes, I think so.
> >> 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. Well, Yuhang also suggested this name... Honestly, I still have a gut feeling that transaction_timeout is a good name, despite being not exactly precise. Thanks! Best regards, Andrey Borodin. PS Sorry for posting twice to the same thread, i noticed your message only after answering to Yuhang's review.
