* Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) 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?
Well, no? statement_timeout is per-statement, while transaction_timeout is, well, per transaction. If there's a process which is going and has an open transaction and it's holding locks, that can be an issue. To be frank, my gut feeling is that transaction_timeout is actually more useful than statement_timeout. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
