On 2014-06-22 19:03:32 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> 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?
I think that'd be rather confusing. For one it'd need to be idle_in_transaction_timeout which already seems less clear (because the transaction belongs to idle) and for another that distinction seems to be to subtle for users. The reason I suggested idle_in_transaction_termination/cancellation_timeout is that that maps nicely to pg_terminate/cancel_backend() and is rather descriptive. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
