Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:41:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 06/18/2014 12:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> >>> There are plenty of badly-written applications which "auto-begin", that
> >>> is, they issue a "BEGIN;" immediately after every "COMMIT;" whether or
> >>> not there's any additional work to do. This is a major source of IIT
> >>> and the timeout should not ignore it.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. We explicitly don't do anything useful until the first actual
> >> command arrives, precisely to avoid that problem.
> >
> > Oh, we don't allocate a snapshot? If not, then no objection here.
>
> The only problem I see is that it makes the semantics kind of weird
> and confusing. "Kill connections that are idle in transaction for too
> long" is a pretty clear spec; "kill connections that are idle in
> transaction except if they haven't executed any commands yet because
> we think you don't care about that case" is not quite as clear, and
> not really what the GUC name says, and maybe not what everybody wants,
> and maybe masterminding.

"Kill connections that are idle in non-empty transaction block for too
long"

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +