Hi Junwang Zhao Agree +1 Best whish
Junwang Zhao <zhjw...@gmail.com> 于2023年12月20日周三 10:35写道： > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 9:58 AM Thomas wen > <thomas_valentine_...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Junwang Zhao > > #should we invalidate lock_timeout? Or maybe just document this. > > I think you mean when lock_time is greater than trasaction-time > invalidate lock_timeout or needs to be logged ? > > > I mean the interleaving of the gucs, which is lock_timeout and the new > introduced transaction_timeout, > if lock_timeout >= transaction_timeout, seems no need to enable > lock_timeout. > > > > > > > > Best whish > > ________________________________ > > 发件人: Junwang Zhao <zhjw...@gmail.com> > > 发送时间: 2023年12月20日 9:48 > > 收件人: Andrey M. Borodin <x4...@yandex-team.ru> > > 抄送: Japin Li <japi...@hotmail.com>; 邱宇航 <iam...@gmail.com>; Fujii Masao > <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>; Andrey Borodin <amborodi...@gmail.com>; > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>; Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com>; Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhva...@gmail.com>; > pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org>; > pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org> > > 主题: Re: Transaction timeout > > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 10:51 PM Junwang Zhao <zhjw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 6:27 PM Andrey M. Borodin < > x4...@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 Dec 2023, at 13:26, Andrey M. Borodin <x4...@yandex-team.ru> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I don’t have Windows machine, so I hope CF bot will pick this. > > > > > > > > I used Github CI to produce version of tests that seems to be is > stable on Windows. > > > > Sorry for the noise. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, Andrey Borodin. > > > > > > + <para> > > > + If <varname>transaction_timeout</varname> is shorter than > > > + <varname>idle_in_transaction_session_timeout</varname> or > > > <varname>statement_timeout</varname> > > > + <varname>transaction_timeout</varname> will invalidate longer > timeout. > > > + </para> > > > > > > When transaction_timeout is *equal* to > idle_in_transaction_session_timeout > > > or statement_timeout, idle_in_transaction_session_timeout and > statement_timeout > > > will also be invalidated, the logic in the code seems right, though > > > this document > > > is a little bit inaccurate. > > > > > <para> > > Unlike <varname>statement_timeout</varname>, this timeout can > only occur > > while waiting for locks. Note that if > > <varname>statement_timeout</varname> > > is nonzero, it is rather pointless to set > > <varname>lock_timeout</varname> to > > the same or larger value, since the statement timeout would > always > > trigger first. If <varname>log_min_error_statement</varname> is > set to > > <literal>ERROR</literal> or lower, the statement that timed out > will be > > logged. > > </para> > > > > There is a note about statement_timeout and lock_timeout, set both > > and lock_timeout >= statement_timeout is pointless, but this logic seems > not > > implemented in the code. I am wondering if lock_timeout >= > transaction_timeout, > > should we invalidate lock_timeout? Or maybe just document this. > > > > > -- > > > Regards > > > Junwang Zhao > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards > > Junwang Zhao > > > > > > > -- > Regards > Junwang Zhao > > >
