Re: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout

["Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>]

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Russell Smith wrote:
> > > I agree with this, it reduces the long running transaction problem a 
> > > little where the user forgot to commit/rollback their session.  I may be 
> > > worth having a transaction_timeout as well, and setting it to link a few 
> > > hours by default.  That way you can't have really long running 
> > > transactions unless you specifically set that.
>
> > We would certainly need to be able to disable on the fly too just with 
> > SET as well.

I should have read what you posted more thoroughly. I apologize. A 
transaction timeout is surely a bad idea as Tom says below. Heck, not 
just from what he says below, but what about the scenario that killing a 
transaction could cause a massive rollback and thus increase the initial 
problem that I posted about :)


> An *idle* timeout seems less risky, as well as much easier to pick a
> sane value for.

Yeah, it could as high as something like 60 minutes if we really wanted.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> 			regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
>                 http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


--

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/