On Sunday, June 22, 2014, Kevin Grittner-5 [via PostgreSQL] < ml-node+s1045698n580830...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> Andres Freund <[hidden email] > <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5808309&i=0>> wrote: > > > 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. > > If we stick with the rule that what is to the left of _timeout is > what is being cancelled, the a GUC to cancel a transaction which > remains idle for too long could be called idle_transaction_timeout. > > Do you disagree with the general idea of following that pattern? > > If we ever do give the user an option the non-specific name with separate type GUC could be used and this session specific variable deprecated. And disallow both to be active at the same time. Or something else. I agree that idle_in_transaction_transaction would be proper but troublesome for the alternative but crossing that bridge if we ever get there seems reasonable in light of picking the best single name for this specific feature. Idle_transaction_timeout has already been discarded since truly idle transactions are not being affected, only those that are in transaction. The first quote above is limited to that subset as well. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/idle-in-transaction-timeout-tp5805859p5808311.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
