On 2014-06-21 11:23:44 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > > On 06/19/2014 06:33 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > >>> ISTM our realistic options are for seconds or msec as the unit. If it's > >>> msec, we'd be limited to INT_MAX msec or around 600 hours at the top end, > >>> which seems like enough to me but maybe somebody thinks differently? > >>> Seconds are probably OK but I'm worried about somebody complaining that > >>> that's not enough resolution, especially as machines get faster. > >> I can picture a 500ms timeout more readily than I can picture a 1000hr > >> timeout. > > > > As long as we can specify the units, and don't have to say 1000 to mean > > 1 second, I agree. I would normally expect this to be set in terms of > > minutes rather than millisecs. > > > OK, so I think we want to see a patch based on v1 (FATAL approach) > with a change of the name to idle_in_transaction_session_timeout > and the units changed to milliseconds.
The idea with the GUC name is that if we ever get support for cancelling transactions we can name that idle_in_transaction_transaction_timeout? That seems a bit awkward... 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
