Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Date
Msg-id 6110.1401853048@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I thought the reason why this hasn't been implemented before now is
> that sending an ErrorResponse to the client will result in a loss of
> protocol sync.

Hmm ... you are right that this isn't as simple as an ereport(ERROR),
but I'm not sure it's impossible.  We could for instance put the backend
into skip-till-Sync state so that it effectively ignored the next command
message.  Causing that to happen might be impracticably messy, though.

I'm not sure whether cancel-transaction behavior is enough better than
cancel-session to warrant extra effort here.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_stat directory and pg_stat_statements
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: recovery testing for beta