|From:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|To:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 11/4/15 4:55 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Joe Conway (mail(at)joeconway(dot)com) wrote:
>> 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
> I'm not sure of that. I can certainly see a use for transaction
> timeouts- after all, they hold locks and can be very disruptive in the
> long run. Further, there are cases where a transaction is normally very
> fast and in a corner case it becomes extremely slow and disruptive to
> the rest of the system. In those cases, having a timeout for it is
> David (adding him to the CC) actually developed a utility specifically
> to identify what transactions are blocking what others and to kill off
> other processes if they were running for too long and blocking higher
> priority processes. It didn't matter, in that environment, if they were
> idle-in-transaction or actively running.
You are remembering correctly, Stephen, though there were different
timeouts for blocking transactions that were running and those that were
idle-in-transaction. We usually set the idle-in-transaction timeout
much lower as it measured not total transaction time but idle time since
the last state change. In that environment, at least, an
idle-in-transaction session was always due to a stuck process, bug, or
user session left open overnight. Because partitions and FKs were
continuously being created even ACCESS SHARE locks could be a problem.
The important thing about this implementation was that nothing was
terminated unless it had exceed a timeout AND was blocking another
process. A feature of this particular system was that it had very long
running transactions that needed to execute unless there was a conflict.
Even then, we'd get an alert some time in advance of the transaction
being terminated so we could make the judgement call to terminate the
other process(es) instead.
|Next Message||Craig Ringer||2015-11-05 12:49:03||Re: September 2015 Commitfest|
|Previous Message||Craig Ringer||2015-11-05 12:31:44||Re: Note about comparation PL/SQL packages and our schema/extensions|