Re: idle in transaction, why

From: Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: idle in transaction, why
Date: 2017-11-07 14:44:59
Message-ID: 19B059B9-E4D6-41CA-AB0A-CBAB58C10EC7@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 12:16 AM, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Rob Sargent schrieb am 06.11.2017 um 23:09:
>> Gosh I wish I could learn to proof-read my posts.
>> My support crew graciously set
>>
>> idle_transaction_timeout = 1
>>
>> Now to ponder if I need zero or some large number.
>
> The unit of that setting is milliseconds (if no unit is specified).
> zero disables that feature.
>
> One millisecond seems like an awfully short period to allow a transaction to be idle.
>
> I would figure values in "minutes" to be more realistic depending on the workload and characteristics of the application.
>
> A transaction that has several seconds of "think time" between individual statements doesn't seem that unrealistic.
>
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
I started with the default zero and the save went through perfectly. It takes ten minutes so I’ll have a concurrency issue I imagine.
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Melvin Davidson 2017-11-07 15:05:47 Re: Incremental refresh - Materialized view
Previous Message Rakesh Kumar 2017-11-07 12:08:55 Re: Incremental refresh - Materialized view