Re: [GENERAL] idle in transaction, why - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Rob Sargent
Subject Re: [GENERAL] idle in transaction, why
Date
Msg-id 19B059B9-E4D6-41CA-AB0A-CBAB58C10EC7@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] idle in transaction, why  (Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] idle in transaction, why
List pgsql-general

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:16 AM, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Rob Sargent schrieb am 06.11.2017 um 23:09:
>> Gosh I wish I could learn to proof-read my posts.
>> My support crew graciously set
>>
>> idle_transaction_timeout = 1
>>
>> Now to ponder if I need zero or some large number.
>
> The unit of that setting is milliseconds (if no unit is specified).
> zero disables that feature.
>
> One millisecond seems like an awfully short period to allow a transaction to be idle.
>
> I would figure values in "minutes" to be more realistic depending on the workload and characteristics of the
application. 
>
> A transaction that has several seconds of "think time" between individual statements doesn't seem that unrealistic.
>
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
I started with the default zero and the save went through perfectly. It takes ten minutes so I’ll have a concurrency
issueI imagine.  
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Rakesh Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Incremental refresh - Materialized view
Next
From: Melvin Davidson
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Incremental refresh - Materialized view