"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Added to TODO: >> * Add idle_timeout GUC so locks are not held for log periods of time
> That should actually be transaction_idle_timeout. It is o.k. for us to > be IDLE... it is not o.k. for us to be IDLE in Transaction Or "idle_in_transaction_timeout"? Anyway I agree that using "idle_timeout" for this is unwise. We've been asked often enough for a flat-out idle timeout (ie kill session after X seconds of no client interaction), and while I disagree with the concept, someday we might cave and implement it. We should reserve the name for the behavior that people would expect a parameter named like that to have. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster