Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

At 2014-06-22 19:45:08 -0700, david.g.johnston@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014, Kevin Grittner-5 [via PostgreSQL] <
> ml-node+s1045698n5808309h3@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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.

I (somewhat reluctantly) agree with Kevin that
"idle_in_transaction_session_timeout" (for FATAL) and
"idle_transaction_timeout" (for ERROR) would work.

The only other alternative I see is to use "idle_transaction_timeout"
now (even when we're killing the session) and later introduce another
setting named "idle_transaction_timeout_keep_session" (default false)
or something like that. (I'd prefer an extra boolean to something set
to 'session' or 'transaction'.)

> Idle_transaction_timeout has already been discarded since truly idle
> transactions are not being affected, only those that are in
> transaction.

I have no idea what this means.

-- Abhijit