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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to