On 11/04/2015 01:55 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote: >> On 11/04/2015 01:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> I agree with Pavel. Having a transaction timeout just does not make any >>> sense. I can see absolutely no use for it. An idle-in-transaction >>> timeout, on the other hand, is very useful. >> >> +1 -- agreed > > I'm not sure of that. I can certainly see a use for transaction > timeouts- after all, they hold locks and can be very disruptive in the > long run. Further, there are cases where a transaction is normally very > fast and in a corner case it becomes extremely slow and disruptive to > the rest of the system. In those cases, having a timeout for it is > valuable.
I could see a use for both, having written scripts which do both. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
