Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1

Oliver Jowett wrote:
> I raised this a while back on -hackers:
> 
>   http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-02/msg00397.php
> 
> but did not get much feedback.

Perhaps you can interpret silence as consent? :)

> Does anyone have comments on that email?

I wouldn't be opposed to it. It would be different than 
statement_timeout, in that we'd be measuring transaction *idle* time, 
not total transaction runtime, so perhaps "transaction_idle_timeout" is 
a better name than "transaction_timeout". Also, presumably when the 
transaction idle timeout fires, we should just rollback the current 
transaction, not close the client connection -- so you could potentially 
have idle backends sticking around for the full TCP timeout period. 
Since they shouldn't be holding any locks I don't see that as a big problem.

-Neil