At 2014-06-19 08:42:01 -0700, kgri...@ymail.com wrote: > > I'm not sure whether using the same name as pgbouncer for the same > functionality makes it less confusing or might lead to confusion > about which layer is disconnecting the client.
I don't think the names of the respective configuration settings will significantly affect that confusion either way. (I can imagine people being confused if they're using pgbouncer without the timeout in front of a server with the timeout. But since they would have to have turned it on explicitly on the server, it can't all THAT much of a surprise. Or at least not that hard to figure out.) > As long as BEGIN causes a connection to show as "idle in transaction" > I think the BEGIN should start the clock on this timeout, based on > POLA. Yes, agreed. I don't think it's worth doing anything more complicated. > Also, it seems like most are ok with the FATAL approach (as in v1 > of this patch). I don't have a strong opinion, but I think FATAL is the pragmatic approach. -- Abhijit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
