Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 11:00 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Then perhaps a setting like max_stale_prepared_transaction_age and once
>> that threshold is met it will autorollback?
> I think that defeats the safety of prepared transactions in many cases.
> Let's say you PREPARE TRANSACTION on two systems, and then COMMIT
> PREPARED on the first one. Then, you go to COMMIT PREPARED on the second
> one, and the time has lapsed so you can't (and you can't rollback the
> first one, either).
Yeah, any sort of auto rollback on prepared xacts is scary.
You could probably argue that an autorollback threshold up around a
billion transactions is safe enough. However, the bad side-effects
of a forgotten prepared transaction would start to happen long before
that, in the form of bloated tables. (Or am I wrong about that?
Does a prepared xact still block vacuum cleanup in HEAD, or has that
been fixed since 8.2?) I think DBAs would be tempted to set the
threshold a lot lower, and then sooner or later they'd lose data.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2009-04-22 18:55:27|
|Subject: Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-04-22 18:48:58|
|Subject: Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again |