Re: Transaction timeout

Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
To: andres@anarazel.de
Cc: amborodin86@gmail.com, samokhvalov@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2022-12-07T02:52:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
At Mon, 5 Dec 2022 17:10:50 -0800, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote in 
> I'm most concerned about the overhead when the timeouts are *not*
> enabled. And this adds a branch to start_xact_command() and a function
> call for get_timeout_active(TRANSACTION_TIMEOUT) in that case. On its
> own, that's not a whole lot, but it does add up. There's 10+ function
> calls for timeout and ps_display purposes for every single statement.

That path seems like existing just for robustness. I inserted
"Assert(0)" just before the disable_timeout(), but make check-world
didn't fail [1]. Couldn't we get rid of that path, adding an assertion
instead?  I'm not sure about other timeouts yet, though.

About disabling side, we cannot rely on StatementTimeout.

[1]
# 032_apply_delay.pl fails for me so I don't know any of the later
# tests fails.

> But it's definitely also worth optimizing the timeout enabled paths. And
> you're right, it looks like there's a fair bit of optimization
> potential.

Thanks. I'll work on that.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center



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