Re: Do we need to handle orphaned prepared transactions in the server?

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 04:03:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 01:52:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:35:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 03:11:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>> If we were going to go down the path of periodically logging warnings
> >>>> about old prepared transactions, some single-instance background task
> >>>> like the checkpointer would be a better place to do the work in. But
> >>>> I'm not really recommending that, because I agree with Robert that
> >>>> we just plain don't want this functionality.
>
> > Sorry, I meant something in the Postgres logs at postmaster start.
>
> That seems strictly worse than periodic logging as far as the probability
> that somebody will notice the log entry goes. In any case it would only
> help people when they restart their postmaster, which ought to be pretty
> infrequent in a production situation.

I thought if something was wrong, they might look at the server logs
after a restart, or they might have a higher probability of having
orphaned prepared transactions after a restart.

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

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +