| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Date: | 2014-06-26 08:50:04 |
| Message-ID: | 53ABDEBC.9010009@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/26/2014 06:45 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> The point of this feature, AFAICS, is to detect clients that are failing
>> > to issue another query or close their transaction as a result of bad
>> > client logic. It's not to protect against network glitches.
>
> If so, the document should explain that cleanly. Otherwise users may
> misunderstand this parameter and try to use it to protect even long transaction
> generated by network glitches or client freeze.
What does pg_stat_activity say for those cases? If it's able to say
"idle in transaction", then this patch covers it. If it isn't, then
that seems like a different patch.
--
Vik
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2014-06-26 09:01:55 | Re: Allowing join removals for more join types |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2014-06-26 08:49:39 | Re: pgsql: Do all-visible handling in lazy_vacuum_page() outside its critic |