Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout
Date: 2007-04-03 02:17:19
Message-ID: 200704030217.l332HJN25119@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
fixed.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Added to TODO:
> > 
> > 	* Add idle_timeout GUC so locks are not held for log periods of time
> > 
> 
> That should actually be transaction_idle_timeout. It is o.k. for us to 
> be IDLE... it is not o.k. for us to be IDLE in Transaction
> 
> 
> Joshua D. Drake
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> >>> Russell Smith wrote:
> >>>> I agree with this, it reduces the long running transaction problem a 
> >>>> little where the user forgot to commit/rollback their session.  I may be 
> >>>> worth having a transaction_timeout as well, and setting it to link a few 
> >>>> hours by default.  That way you can't have really long running 
> >>>> transactions unless you specifically set that.
> >>> We would certainly need to be able to disable on the fly too just with 
> >>> SET as well.
> >> AFAICS, a *transaction* timeout per se has no use whatever except as a
> >> foot-gun.  How will you feel when you start a 12-hour restore, go home
> >> for the evening, and come back in the morning to find it aborted because
> >> you forgot to disable your 4-hour timeout?
> >>
> >> Furthermore, if you have to set transaction_timeout to multiple hours
> >> in the (vain) hope of not killing something important, what use is it
> >> really?  If you want to keep VACUUM able to work in a busy database,
> >> you need it to be a lot less than that.
> >>
> >> An *idle* timeout seems less risky, as well as much easier to pick a
> >> sane value for.
> >>
> >> 			regards, tom lane
> >>
> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
> >>
> >>                 http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>        === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
> Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
> Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
>               http://www.commandprompt.com/
> 
> Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-03 02:23:57
Subject: Re: Modifying TOAST thresholds
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-04-03 02:17:15
Subject: Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group