Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions
Date: 2015-11-04 21:48:41
Message-ID: 563A7D39.1080402@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/04/2015 01:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I agree with Pavel. Having a transaction timeout just does not make any
> sense. I can see absolutely no use for it. An idle-in-transaction
> timeout, on the other hand, is very useful.

+1 -- agreed

Joe

--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2015-11-04 21:55:04 Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-11-04 21:24:44 Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions