Re: BUG #14821: idle_in_transaction_session_timeout sometimes gets ignored when statement timeout is pending

Hi,

On 2017-09-21 01:09:56 +0000, lukas(at)fittl(dot)com wrote:
> It seems to me that ProcessInterrupts() should check for the idle in
> transaction timeout first, since it short-circuits and returns early if
> QueryCancelPending && QueryCancelHoldoffCount != 0 before even getting
> there.

Indeed - although I wonder if the correct fix isn't to move things
around, but to instead avoid the order dependency changing the short
circuit logic so that there's no early return. Like e.g.

if (QueryCancelPending && QueryCancelHoldoffCount != 0)
{
/* rearm */
}
else if (QueryCancelPending)
{
/* handle interrupt */
}

there's really no good reason for the return right now, and it's bound
to create more bugs in the future.

Greetings,

Andres Freund