| From: | "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha(dot)takeshi(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Tatsuo Ishii' <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, "peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com" <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: idle-in-transaction timeout error does not give a hint |
| Date: | 2019-03-31 23:44:23 |
| Message-ID: | 4E72940DA2BF16479384A86D54D0988A6F46B341@G01JPEXMBKW04 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>From: Tatsuo Ishii [mailto:ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp]
>
>> Personally, I don't find this hint particularly necessary. The
>> session was terminated because nothing was happening, so the real fix
>> on the application side is probably more involved than just retrying.
>> This is different from some of the other cases that were cited, such
>> as serialization conflicts, where you just got unlucky due to
>> concurrent events. In the case of idle-in-transaction-timeout, the
>> fault is entirely your own.
>
>Hum. Sounds like a fair argument. Ideriha-san, what do you think?
>
Hi.
As Peter mentioned, application code generally needs to handle more things
than retrying.
So I'm ok with not adding this hint.
Regards,
Takeshi Ideriha
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2019-03-31 23:50:17 | Re: idle-in-transaction timeout error does not give a hint |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2019-03-31 22:42:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Weaker shmem interlock w/o postmaster.pid |