Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Date
Msg-id 53A22850.1020707@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 06/18/2014 04:54 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 2014-06-19 1:46 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Robert's right, not killing the "BEGIN;" only transactions is liable to
>> result in user confusion unless we label those sessions differently in
>> pg_stat_activity.
> 
> Wouldn't they be labeled differently already?  i.e. the last query would
> be "BEGIN".  Unless your app tries to unsuccessfully use nested
> transactions, you would know why it hasn't been killed.

That's pretty darned obscure for a casual user.  *you* would know, and
*I* would know, but 99.5% of our users would be very confused.

Plus, if a session which has only issued a "BEGIN;" doesn't have a
snapshot and isn't holding any locks, then I'd argue we shouldn't lable
it IIT in the first place because it's not doing any of the bad stuff we
want to resolve by killing IITs.  Effectively, it's just "idle".

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marko Tiikkaja
Date:
Subject: Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: /proc/self/oom_adj is deprecated in newer Linux kernels