David Wall wrote:
>>I'm facing a problem with the unfamous:
>>
>>"idle in transaction"
>
>
> Why is this "infamous"? Does it cause problems somewhere? I understand it
> may "look unusual" to you, but there's really no issue in that each
> connection that doesn't use autocommit is always in a transaction, so that
> any statements you issue are done under that transaction until you
> commit/rollback, at which time a new transaction is initiated in preparation
> for further statements being issued.
>
> Is there some issue that Postgresql has problems because such transactions
> are held open for a long time? I've never seen any such problem in the
> years using PG. After all, maintaining the open connection is the expensive
> operation, and I think the open transaction is a nit (but I certainly can be
> wrong!).
Yes a "idle in transaction" connection for example block each vacuum
full, just not to mention all the rows kidnapped by that transaction.
Again, for me the actual behave is not the right one.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola.
