Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

On 06/04/2014 01:38 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 06/03/2014 02:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> Out of curiosity, how much harder would it have been just to abort the
>>> transaction? I think breaking the connection is probably the right
>>> behavior, but before folks start arguing it out, I wanted to know if
>>> aborting the transaction is even a reasonable thing to do.
>> FWIW, I think aborting the transaction is probably better, especially
>> if the patch is designed to do nothing to already-aborted transactions.
>> If the client is still there, it will see the abort as a failure in its
>> next query, which is less likely to confuse it completely than a
>> connection loss. (I think, anyway.)
> Personally, I think we'll get about equal amounts of confusion either way.
>
>> The argument that we might want to close the connection to free up
>> connection slots doesn't seem to me to hold water as long as we allow
>> a client that *isn't* inside a transaction to sit on an idle connection
>> forever. Perhaps there is room for a second timeout that limits how
>> long you can sit idle independently of being in a transaction, but that
>> isn't this patch.
> Like I said, I'm marginally in favor of terminating the connection, but
> I'd be completely satisfied with a timeout which aborted the transaction
> instead. Assuming that change doesn't derail this patch and keep it
> from getting into 9.5, of course.

The change is as simple as changing the ereport from FATAL to ERROR.

Attached is a new patch doing it that way.

--
Vik