Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2014-06-22 19:03:32 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I think that'd be rather confusing. For one it'd need to be
> idle_in_transaction_timeout which already seems less clear (because the
> transaction belongs to idle) and for another that distinction seems to
> be to subtle for users.
>
> The reason I suggested
> idle_in_transaction_termination/cancellation_timeout is that that maps
> nicely to pg_terminate/cancel_backend() and is rather descriptive.

Maybe we can remove IIT_termination_timeout when we've implemented
IIT_cancellation_timeout. Right? I'm not sure if IIT_termination_timeout is
still useful even at that case. *If* it's not useful, I think we don't need to
have those two parameters and can just define one parameter IIT_timeout.
That's quite simple and it's similar to the current style of statement_timeout
and lock_timeout (IOW, we don't have something like
statement_termination_timeout and lock_termination_timeout).

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao