Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G Johnston
Subject Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwb5PC_=-bEDCsWX6TTCCQ8JqosqVn0eFA+XbqNzYZ821g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> A long idle in transaction state pretty much always indicates a
> problematic interaction with postgres.

True.  Which makes me wonder whether we shouldn't default this to
something non-zero -- even if it is 5 or 10 days.  

​I guess it depends on how parental we want to be.  But if we go that route wouldn't a more harsh/in-your-face default make more sense?  Something in Minutes, not Days​...say '5min'...

David J.





View this message in context: Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David G Johnston
Date:
Subject: Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL