| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions |
| Date: | 2015-11-04 21:24:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20151104212444.GT6104@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2015-11-04 22:14 GMT+01:00 Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
>
> > On 11/04/2015 01:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> >> I am sorry, but I have a different experience from GoodData. The few
> >> hours autovacuum is usual. So probably, there should be exception for
> >> autovacuum, dump, ..
> >
> > But autovacuum and dump are not idle in transaction or am I missing
> > something?
>
> last Merlin's proposal was about transaction_timeout not
> transaction_idle_timeout
I agree with Pavel. Having a transaction timeout just does not make any
sense. I can see absolutely no use for it. An idle-in-transaction
timeout, on the other hand, is very useful.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2015-11-04 21:48:41 | Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-11-04 21:22:03 | Re: [patch] Proposal for \rotate in psql |