Thanks for looking into this Andres! On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:07 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I'm a bit worried about adding evermore branches and function calls for > the processing of single statements. We already spend a noticable > percentage of the cycles for a single statement in PostgresMain(), this > adds additional overhead. > > I'm somewhat inclined to think that we need some redesign here before we > add more overhead. > We can cap statement_timeout\idle_session_timeout by the budget of transaction_timeout left. Either way we can do batch function enable_timeouts() instead enable_timeout_after().
Does anything of it make sense? > > > @@ -1360,6 +1363,16 @@ IdleInTransactionSessionTimeoutHandler(void) > > SetLatch(MyLatch); > > } > > > > +static void > > +TransactionTimeoutHandler(void) > > +{ > > +#ifdef HAVE_SETSID > > + /* try to signal whole process group */ > > + kill(-MyProcPid, SIGINT); > > +#endif > > + kill(MyProcPid, SIGINT); > > +} > > + > > Why does this use signals instead of just setting the latch like > IdleInTransactionSessionTimeoutHandler() etc? I just copied statement_timeout behaviour. As I understand this implementation is prefered if the timeout can catch the backend running at full steam. > > diff --git a/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c > > b/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c > > index 0081873a72..5229fe3555 100644 > > --- a/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c > > +++ b/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c > > @@ -3089,6 +3089,7 @@ _doSetFixedOutputState(ArchiveHandle *AH) > > ahprintf(AH, "SET statement_timeout = 0;\n"); > > ahprintf(AH, "SET lock_timeout = 0;\n"); > > ahprintf(AH, "SET idle_in_transaction_session_timeout = 0;\n"); > > + ahprintf(AH, "SET transaction_timeout = 0;\n"); > > Hm - why is that the right thing to do? Because transaction_timeout has effects of statement_timeout. Thank you! Best regards, Andrey Borodin.