Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
> On 06/19/2014 06:33 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> ISTM our realistic options are for seconds or msec as the unit. If it's >>> msec, we'd be limited to INT_MAX msec or around 600 hours at the top end, >>> which seems like enough to me but maybe somebody thinks differently? >>> Seconds are probably OK but I'm worried about somebody complaining that >>> that's not enough resolution, especially as machines get faster. >> I can picture a 500ms timeout more readily than I can picture a 1000hr >> timeout. > > As long as we can specify the units, and don't have to say 1000 to mean > 1 second, I agree. I would normally expect this to be set in terms of > minutes rather than millisecs. OK, so I think we want to see a patch based on v1 (FATAL approach) with a change of the name to idle_in_transaction_session_timeout and the units changed to milliseconds. I don't see why the remoteversion test shouldn't be changed to use 90500 now, too. I'll flip this to Waiting on Author for those changes. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
