Re: FATAL Idle transaction timeout - TRX Commit

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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