Re: timeout implementation issues, lock timeouts

On Monday 01 April 2002 20:18, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:>
> Agreed, only one timeout. 
> ...

We have (at least) two ortogonal reasons why we want 
to abort a long running transaction:

- The long running transaction might compute a result  we are not interesed anymore (because it just takes too long to
waitfor the result). We do NOT always know in advance how patient we will be to wait for the result. Therefore I think
theclient should tell  the server, when his client (user?) got impatinet and aborted the whole transaction...
 

- The long running transaction might hold exclusive locks  and therefore decreases (or even nullifies) the overall
concurrency.We want to be able to disallow this by design.
 

I think a nice timout criteria would be a maximum lock time 
for all resources aquired exclusivly within a transaction. 
This would then affect transaction timeouts as well as statement 
timeouts with the advantage, the get concurrency guaratees.

Robert