2014-06-22 19:47 GMT+02:00 Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>: > On 2014-06-22 09:27:24 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > > The idea with the GUC name is that if we ever get support for > > > cancelling transactions we can name that > > > idle_in_transaction_transaction_timeout? > > > That seems a bit awkward... > > > > No, the argument was that for all the other *_timeout settings what > > came before _timeout was the thing that was being terminated. I > > think there were some votes in favor of the name on that basis, and > > none against. Feel free to give your reasons for supporting some > > other name. > > My reasons for not liking the current GUC name are hinted at above. I think > we'll want a version of this that just fails the transaction once we > have the infrastructure. So we should choose a name that allows for > a complimentary GUC. > CAKFQuwZCg2uur=tudz_c2auwbo87offghn9mx_hz4qd-b8f...@mail.gmail.com > suggested > On 2014-06-19 10:39:48 -0700, David G Johnston wrote: > > "idle_in_transaction_timeout=10s" > > "idle_in_transaction_target=session|transaction" > > but I don't like that much. Not sure what'd be good, the best I > currently can come up with is: > idle_in_transaction_termination_timeout = > idle_in_transaction_cancellation_timeout = >
+1 Pavel > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund > > -- > Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
