Re: Transaction timeout - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

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