Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> I think we'll want a version of this that just fails the
> transaction once we have the infrastructure. So we should choose
> a name that allows for a complimentary GUC.

If we stick with the rule that what is to the left of _timeout is
what is being cancelled, the a GUC to cancel a transaction which
remains idle for too long could be called idle_transaction_timeout.

Do you disagree with the general idea of following that pattern?

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company