Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Date
Msg-id 20961.1403630269@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@dalibo.com>)
Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 06/23/2014 03:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> True.  Which makes me wonder whether we shouldn't default this to
>> something non-zero -- even if it is 5 or 10 days.

> I'd go for even shorter: 48 hours.  I'd suggest 24 hours, but that would
> trip up some users who just need really long pg_dumps.

FWIW, I do not think we should have a nonzero default for this.
We could not safely set it to any value that would be small enough
to be really useful in the field.

BTW, has anyone thought about the interaction of this feature with
prepared transactions?  I wonder whether there shouldn't be a similar but
separately-settable maximum time for a transaction to stay in the prepared
state.  If we could set a nonzero default on that, perhaps on the order of
a few minutes, we could solve the ancient bugaboo that "prepared
transactions are too dangerous to enable by default".
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures