Re: Transaction timeout

Hi Junwang Zhao
   Agree +1

Best whish

Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> 于2023年12月20日周三 10:35写道：

> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 9:58 AM Thomas wen
> <Thomas_valentine_365@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Junwang Zhao
> >      #should we invalidate lock_timeout? Or maybe just document this.
> > I think you mean when lock_time is greater than trasaction-time
> invalidate lock_timeout or  needs to be logged ?
> >
> I mean the interleaving of the gucs, which is lock_timeout and the new
> introduced transaction_timeout,
> if lock_timeout >= transaction_timeout, seems no need to enable
> lock_timeout.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best whish
> > ________________________________
> > 发件人: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com>
> > 发送时间: 2023年12月20日 9:48
> > 收件人: Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
> > 抄送: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>; 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 <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
> > 主题: Re: Transaction timeout
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 10:51 PM Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 6:27 PM Andrey M. Borodin <
> x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 19 Dec 2023, at 13:26, Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don’t have Windows machine, so I hope CF bot will pick this.
> > > >
> > > > I used Github CI to produce version of tests that seems to be is
> stable on Windows.
> > > > Sorry for the noise.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
> > >
> > > +       <para>
> > > +        If <varname>transaction_timeout</varname> is shorter than
> > > +        <varname>idle_in_transaction_session_timeout</varname> or
> > > <varname>statement_timeout</varname>
> > > +        <varname>transaction_timeout</varname> will invalidate longer
> timeout.
> > > +       </para>
> > >
> > > When transaction_timeout is *equal* to
> idle_in_transaction_session_timeout
> > > or statement_timeout, idle_in_transaction_session_timeout and
> statement_timeout
> > > will also be invalidated, the logic in the code seems right, though
> > > this document
> > > is a little bit inaccurate.
> > >
> >        <para>
> >         Unlike <varname>statement_timeout</varname>, this timeout can
> only occur
> >         while waiting for locks.  Note that if
> > <varname>statement_timeout</varname>
> >         is nonzero, it is rather pointless to set
> > <varname>lock_timeout</varname> to
> >         the same or larger value, since the statement timeout would
> always
> >         trigger first.  If <varname>log_min_error_statement</varname> is
> set to
> >         <literal>ERROR</literal> or lower, the statement that timed out
> will be
> >         logged.
> >        </para>
> >
> > There is a note about statement_timeout and lock_timeout, set both
> > and lock_timeout >= statement_timeout is pointless, but this logic seems
> not
> > implemented in the code. I am wondering if lock_timeout >=
> transaction_timeout,
> > should we invalidate lock_timeout? Or maybe just document this.
> >
> > > --
> > > Regards
> > > Junwang Zhao
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards
> > Junwang Zhao
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Junwang Zhao
>
>
>