On 04/11/2010 13:43, Jim Fulton wrote: >> I'm curious: >> >> - Why is the timeout not logged at ERROR or even CRITICAL? > > Because it was considered to be neither. It's also not a server error.
It is an erroneous condition; a transaction has taken long enough that a timeout has occurred. Thinking about it, it feels more like a TimeoutException should be raised, but then would the storage server clean things up properly? >> - Is the "inconsistent state" warning genuine here? > > Yes. You don't really know whether the transaction committed or not. > It's much worse if multiple storages are involved. ...which of course, they are ;-) >> - If that warning is genuine, is there any way the timeout could not >> leave the client in an inconsistent state? > > Absolutely. My wording was poor: If that warning is genuine, is there any way the timeout could be made to not leave the client in an inconsistent state? > This is why I tend to view transaction timeouts as a last resort and > set the limit > much higher, 5 minutes. Fair enough. Seems odd to have a feature which you seem to be suggestion should not be used... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev