| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin <zzzzz(dot)graf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FATAL Idle transaction timeout - TRX Commit |
| Date: | 2026-09-08 16:22:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0x5VEteKVjVrUcOuYpk+M4CX=pJyoQumYgUahwHx3yGtA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Sep 5, 2026 at 7:30 AM Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> This is not a normal FATAL from the server - that particular message is
> coming from pgcat, not from Postgres. So the normal FATAL/connection
> terminated/reconnect flow is not relevant here, as it is pgcat that is
> responsible for all this. The FATAL is being sent to the client only -
> pgcat is probably releasing that connection and fetching you a new one in
> the background. Try tweaking your idle_client_in_transaction_timeout
> setting in your pgcat config to duplicate/debug the behavior, and sprinkle
> some pg_backend_pid() calls in there.
>
100% this. It looks like pgcat may be mixing up the sessions so that a
transaction might not be 'pinned' properly to a single client after being
opened. I can't say for sure since I'm not so familiar with pgcat but this
looks dangerous; somehow an open transaction may have been checked back
into the pool.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2026-09-09 14:40:08 | Re: Subject: ISO 8601 expanded years (±YYYYY) rejected on input, though the same dates print fine |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2026-09-08 15:13:34 | Re: introducing pgasync and pgflow |