On 11/04/2015 02:07 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > 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. > > Yeah but anything holding a lock that long can be terminated via > statement_timeout can it not?
That is exactly what I was thinking -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
