Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Russell Smith wrote:
>>> I agree with this, it reduces the long running transaction problem a
>>> little where the user forgot to commit/rollback their session. I may be
>>> worth having a transaction_timeout as well, and setting it to link a few
>>> hours by default. That way you can't have really long running
>>> transactions unless you specifically set that.
>> We would certainly need to be able to disable on the fly too just with
>> SET as well.
> AFAICS, a *transaction* timeout per se has no use whatever except as a
> foot-gun. How will you feel when you start a 12-hour restore, go home
> for the evening, and come back in the morning to find it aborted because
> you forgot to disable your 4-hour timeout?
Well of course that would be bad. That is why I said, idle in
transaction. If you are idle, you are doing nothing yes?
Joshua D. Drake
> Furthermore, if you have to set transaction_timeout to multiple hours
> in the (vain) hope of not killing something important, what use is it
> really? If you want to keep VACUUM able to work in a busy database,
> you need it to be a lot less than that.
> An *idle* timeout seems less risky, as well as much easier to pick a
> sane value for.
> regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-03-31 16:14:08|
|Subject: Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-03-31 16:03:10|
|Subject: Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout |