Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Out of curiosity, how much harder would it have been just to abort the
> transaction? I think breaking the connection is probably the right
> behavior, but before folks start arguing it out, I wanted to know if
> aborting the transaction is even a reasonable thing to do.

FWIW, I think aborting the transaction is probably better, especially
if the patch is designed to do nothing to already-aborted transactions.
If the client is still there, it will see the abort as a failure in its
next query, which is less likely to confuse it completely than a
connection loss. (I think, anyway.)

The argument that we might want to close the connection to free up
connection slots doesn't seem to me to hold water as long as we allow
a client that *isn't* inside a transaction to sit on an idle connection
forever. Perhaps there is room for a second timeout that limits how
long you can sit idle independently of being in a transaction, but that
isn't this patch.

regards, tom lane