2015-11-05 19:31 GMT+01:00 Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com>: > On 11/05/2015 10:09 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > On 5.11.2015 19:02 Merlin Moncure wrote: > >> Thus, I think we have consensus that transaction_timeout is good -- it > >> would deprecate statement_timeout essentially. Likewise, > >> pg_cancel_transaction is good and would deprecate pg_cancel_backend; > >> it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where a user would call > >> pg_cancel_backend if pg_cancel_transaction were to be available. > > > > I am sorry, I see a consensus between you and Stephen only. > > S > t C > a<-------------<transaction>--------------->E > r A B A B A n > t <idle> <stmt> <idle> <stmt> <idle> d > |--------======--------======---------------| > > Currently we can set timeout and cancel for period B (<stmt>). I can see > based on this discussion that there are legitimate use cases for wanting > timeout and cancel for any of the periods A, B, or C. > > I guess the question then becomes how we provide that coverage. I think > for coverage of timeout you need three individual timeout settings. > However for cancel, it would seem that pg_cancel_transaction would cover > all three cases. >
It can be difficult to set it properly, because you don't know how much statements (cycles of A.B) will be in transaction. Respective for setting C, I have to know the number of A,B and it isn't possible everytime. Regards Pavel > > Joe > > -- > Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com > PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises > Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development > >
