Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout

From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(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 23:54:28
Message-ID: 53A226B4.6000102@joh.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-06-19 1:46 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Robert's right, not killing the "BEGIN;" only transactions is liable to
> result in user confusion unless we label those sessions differently in
> pg_stat_activity.

Wouldn't they be labeled differently already? i.e. the last query would
be "BEGIN". Unless your app tries to unsuccessfully use nested
transactions, you would know why it hasn't been killed.

.marko

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2014-06-19 00:01:20 Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2014-06-18 23:46:46 Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout