| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, 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: | 2014-06-19 00:01:20 |
| Message-ID: | 53A22850.1020707@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/18/2014 04:54 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> 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.
That's pretty darned obscure for a casual user. *you* would know, and
*I* would know, but 99.5% of our users would be very confused.
Plus, if a session which has only issued a "BEGIN;" doesn't have a
snapshot and isn't holding any locks, then I'd argue we shouldn't lable
it IIT in the first place because it's not doing any of the bad stuff we
want to resolve by killing IITs. Effectively, it's just "idle".
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-19 00:15:14 | Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-06-18 23:54:28 | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |