Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Date
Msg-id 27179.1403119945@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>  There are plenty of badly-written applications which "auto-begin", that
> is, they issue a "BEGIN;" immediately after every "COMMIT;" whether or
> not there's any additional work to do.  This is a major source of IIT
> and the timeout should not ignore it.

Nonsense.  We explicitly don't do anything useful until the first actual
command arrives, precisely to avoid that problem.

It might be that we should slap such apps' wrists anyway, but given
that we've gone to the trouble of working around the behavior at the
system structural level, I'd be inclined to say not.  What you'd be
doing is preventing people who have to deal with such apps from using
the timeout in any useful fashion.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE