Re: Transaction timeout
| От | Andrey M. Borodin |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Transaction timeout |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 145F4741-008A-41BF-AE06-1BE1435DFB1A@yandex-team.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Transaction timeout (Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Transaction timeout
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 7 Dec 2023, at 06:25, Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote:If idle_in_transaction_timeout is bigger than transaction_timeout,
the idle-in-transaction timeout don't needed, right?
Yes, I think so.
TODO: as Yuhang pointed out prepared transactions must not be killed, thus name "transaction_timeout" is not correct. I think the name must be like "session_transaction_timeout", but I'd like to have an opinion of someone more experienced in giving names to GUCs than me. Or, perhaps, a native speaker?How about transaction_session_timeout? Similar to idle_session_timeout.
Well, Yuhang also suggested this name...
Honestly, I still have a gut feeling that transaction_timeout is a good name, despite being not exactly precise.
Thanks!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
PS Sorry for posting twice to the same thread, i noticed your message only after answering to Yuhang's review.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: