On 06/22/2014 07:47 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > 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 =
Except the transaction wouldn't be cancelled, it would be aborted. idle_in_transaction_abortion_timeout seems a little... weird. -- Vik -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
