2015-11-05 19:56 GMT+01:00 Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com>: > On 11/05/2015 10:48 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > 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. > > But you might have a limit you want to enforce regardless of the size or > quantity of A & B periods. That's why it needs to be a separate timeout > IMHO. Let's say I never want a transaction to be around more than 60 > minutes no matter what. But I also don't want idle in transaction to > ever exceed 30 seconds, and I don't expect individual statements to > exceed 10 minutes. >
I am not sure due my wrong English if we are in agreement or not, I am sorry :/ - Any mentioned timeouts are useful and covers little bit different issues - and we need all. Regards Pavel > > Joe > > -- > Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com > PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises > Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development > >
