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.
I should have read what you posted more thoroughly. I apologize. A
transaction timeout is surely a bad idea as Tom says below. Heck, not
just from what he says below, but what about the scenario that killing a
transaction could cause a massive rollback and thus increase the initial
problem that I posted about :)
> An *idle* timeout seems less risky, as well as much easier to pick a
> sane value for.
Yeah, it could as high as something like 60 minutes if we really wanted.
Joshua D. Drake
> 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: Pavan Deolasee||Date: 2007-03-31 16:22:23|
|Subject: Re: CIC and deadlocks|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-03-31 16:10:54|
|Subject: Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout|