2015-11-04 18:18 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > 2015-11-04 18:11 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > >> > >> Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> Yes, and that is what I meant. I have two problems with > >> >> transaction_idle_timeout (as opposed to transaction_timeout): > >> >> > >> >> A) It's more complex. Unsophisticated administrators may not > >> >> understand or set it properly > >> >> > >> >> B) There is no way to enforce an upper bound on transaction time with > >> >> that setting. A pathological application could keep a transaction > >> >> open forever without running into any timeouts -- that's a > dealbreaker > >> >> for me. > >> >> > >> >> From my point of view the purpose of the setting should be to protect > >> >> you from any single actor from doing things that damage the database. > >> >> 'idle in transaction' happens to be one obvious way, but upper bound > >> >> on transaction time protects you in general way. > >> > >> > Note, having both settings would work too. > >> > >> I'd vote for just transaction_timeout. The way our timeout manager > >> logic works, that should be more efficient, as the timeout would only > >> have to be established once at transaction start, not every time the > >> main command loop iterates. > > > > > > I cannot to say, so transaction_timeout is not useful, but it cannot be > > effective solution for some mentioned issues. With larger data you > cannot to > > set transaction_timeout less than few hours. > > sure. note however any process can manually opt in to a longer timeout. >
it doesn't help. How I can set transaction_timeout if I have series of slow statements? In this case I cannot to set transaction_timeout before any statement or after any success statement. > > merlin >
