On Monday 01 April 2002 20:18, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote:> > Agreed, only one timeout. > ...
We have (at least) two ortogonal reasons why we want to abort a long running transaction: - The long running transaction might compute a result we are not interesed anymore (because it just takes too long to wait for the result). We do NOT always know in advance how patient we will be to wait for the result. Therefore I think the client should tell the server, when his client (user?) got impatinet and aborted the whole transaction... - The long running transaction might hold exclusive locks and therefore decreases (or even nullifies) the overall concurrency. We want to be able to disallow this by design. I think a nice timout criteria would be a maximum lock time for all resources aquired exclusivly within a transaction. This would then affect transaction timeouts as well as statement timeouts with the advantage, the get concurrency guaratees. Robert ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
