Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Date
Msg-id 53A9C655.60808@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 06/24/2014 10:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

48 hours would actually be a useful value; I've dealt multiple times
with newbie users who had a transaction which had been open for a week.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL for VAX on NetBSD/OpenBSD
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_receivexlog add synchronous mode