On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.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. > > I could see a use for both, having written scripts which do both.
+1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
