2015-11-05 19:31 GMT+01:00 Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com>:

> On 11/05/2015 10:09 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > On 5.11.2015 19:02 Merlin Moncure wrote:
> >> Thus, I think we have consensus that transaction_timeout is good -- it
> >> would deprecate statement_timeout essentially.  Likewise,
> >> pg_cancel_transaction is good and would deprecate pg_cancel_backend;
> >> it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where a user would call
> >> pg_cancel_backend if pg_cancel_transaction were to be available.
> >
> > I am sorry, I see a consensus between you and Stephen only.
> S
> t                    C
> a<-------------<transaction>--------------->E
> r    A      B     A      B      A           n
> t <idle> <stmt> <idle> <stmt> <idle>        d
> |--------======--------======---------------|
> Currently we can set timeout and cancel for period B (<stmt>). I can see
> based on this discussion that there are legitimate use cases for wanting
> timeout and cancel for any of the periods A, B, or C.
> I guess the question then becomes how we provide that coverage. I think
> for coverage of timeout you need three individual timeout settings.
> However for cancel, it would seem that pg_cancel_transaction would cover
> all three cases.

It can be difficult to set it properly, because you don't know how much
statements (cycles of A.B) will be in transaction. Respective for setting
C, I have to know the number of A,B and it isn't possible everytime.



> Joe
> --
> Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
> PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
> Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Reply via email to