Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Date
Msg-id 53A1EE47.5050600@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@dalibo.com>)
Responses Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 06/18/2014 12:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Oh, we don't allocate a snapshot?  If not, then no objection here.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: How about a proper TEMPORARY TABLESPACE?
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reduce the number of semaphores used under --disable-spinlocks.