| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Date: | 2014-06-18 19:53:43 |
| Message-ID: | 53A1EE47.5050600@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-18 19:56:49 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reduce the number of semaphores used under --disable-spinlocks. |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-06-18 19:53:34 | Re: How about a proper TEMPORARY TABLESPACE? |