Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2?

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>wrote:

> On 2013-09-11 15:06:23 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> > One thing that this made me wonder is why we don't have
> transaction_timeout,
> > or maybe transaction_idle_timeout.
>
> Because it's harder than it sounds, at least if you want to support
> idle-in-transactions. Note that we do not support pg_cancel_backend()
> for those yet...
>

So we are left with pg_terminate_backend in a cron job. That mostly seems
to work, because usually apps that abandon connections in the
idle-in-transaction state will never check back on them anyway, but cancel
would be nicer.

>
> Also, I think it might lead to papering over actual issues with
> applications leaving transactions open. I don't really see a valid
> reason for an application needing cancelling of long idle transactions.
>

Some of us make a living, at least partially, by papering over issues with
3rd party applications that we have no control over!

Cheers,

Jeff