|From:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Do we need to handle orphaned prepared transactions in the server?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:22:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Tom Lane schrieb am 22.01.2020 um 16:05:
> >> Right. It's the XA transaction manager's job not to forget uncommitted
> >> transactions. Reasoning as though no TM exists is not only not very
> >> relevant, but it might lead you to put in features that actually
> >> make the TM's job harder. In particular, a timeout (or any other
> >> mechanism that leads PG to abort or commit a prepared transaction
> >> of its own accord) does that.
> > That's a fair point, but the reality is that not all XA transaction managers
> > do a good job with that.
> If you've got a crappy XA manager, you should get a better one, not
> ask us to put in features that make PG unsafe to use with well-designed
> XA managers.
I think the big question is whether we want to make active prepared
transactions more visible to administrators, either during server start
or idle duration.
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2020-01-22 17:19:04||Re: [HACKERS] kqueue|
|Previous Message||Maciek Sakrejda||2020-01-22 16:54:40||Re: Duplicate Workers entries in some EXPLAIN plans|