Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoacMAWA3_RXyYo9Gj8YuppvzCgB2DGBif-HrEdf=WvG1w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
>> Why is IIT timeout turned on only when send_ready_for_query is true?
>> I was thinking it should be turned on every time a message is received.
>> Imagine the case where the session is in idle-in-transaction state and
>> a client gets stuck after sending Parse message and before sending Bind
>> message. This case would also cause long transaction problem and should
>> be resolved by IIT timeout. But IIT timeout that this patch adds cannot
>> handle this case because it's enabled only when send_ready_for_query is
>> true. Thought?
>
> I think you just moved the goalposts to the next county.
>
> The point of this feature, AFAICS, is to detect clients that are failing
> to issue another query or close their transaction as a result of bad
> client logic.  It's not to protect against network glitches.

Hmm, so there's no reason a client, after sending one protocol
message, might not pause before sending the next protocol message?
That seems like a surprising argument.  Someone couldn't Parse and
then wait before sending Bind and Execute, or Parse and Bind and then
wait before sending Execute?

> Moreover, there would be no way to implement a timeout like that without
> adding a gettimeofday() call after every packet receipt, which is overhead
> we do not need and cannot afford.  I don't think this feature should add
> *any* gettimeofday's beyond the ones that are already there.

That's an especially good point if we think that this feature will be
enabled commonly or by default - but as Fujii Masao says, it might be
tricky to avoid.  :-(

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Rajeev rastogi
Date:
Subject: Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP)
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Atomics hardware support table & supported architectures