Horton

Re: Transaction timeout

x4mmm@yandex-team.ru

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
To: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Cc: 邱宇航 <iamqyh@gmail.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>, Andrey Borodin <amborodin86@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-12-07T12:40:34Z
Lists: 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.

Commits

  1. Add TAP tests for timeouts

  2. Remove flaky isolation tests for timeouts

  3. Followup fixes for transaction_timeout

  4. Introduce transaction_timeout

  5. On systems that have setsid(2) (which should be just about everything except