Re: Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived
Date: 2016-02-03 22:52:14
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZBv_Luu6M+kUY077iEPTChRFc93dYn4y_sWAqy=EjM9A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think killing the session is a perfectly sensible thing to do in this
>> case. Everything meaningful that was done in the session will be rolled
>> back - no need to waste resources keeping the connection open.
>
>
> Except you end up losing stuff like every GUC you've set, existing temp
> tables, etc. For an application that presumably doesn't matter, but for a
> user connection it would be a PITA.
>
> I wouldn't put a bunch of effort into it though. Dropping the connection is
> certainly better than nothing.

Well, my view is that if somebody wants an alternative behavior
besides dropping the connection, they can write a patch to provide
that as an additional option. That, too, has been discussed before.
But the fact that somebody might want that doesn't make this a bad or
useless behavior. Indeed, I'd venture that more people would want
this than would want that.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-02-03 22:56:40 Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)
Previous Message Vik Fearing 2016-02-03 22:51:44 Re: Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived