Re: <IDLE> in transaction

On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:55:19AM -0700, elein wrote:
> I'm cross posting to INTERFACES. Please follow up
> on INTERFACES and not on general. Cross posting is evil.

Well, I'm not on -interfaces, so I'll reply to both :-) I don't worry
too much about crossposting, because a) it's commonplace in PostgreSQL
lists, and b) majordomo can deliver a single copy of the message if you
configure it to do so.

> > Some of these I-i-t connections come and go after a while.
> > Some stick around for DAYS.
> >
> > If ANYONE has any brilliant ideas as to the source and
> > dare I say correction to this problem, many people, especially
> > myself would be very very happy.

While this is a purely client-side problem, which is the client issuing
a BEGIN right after a COMMIT, we talked about coding around it
server-side, back in the time when I was doing nested transactions.
It didn't get done though. I think if you push hard enough, somebody
(myself?) may do it for 8.2.

Of course, this is no solution if the client started a transaction, did
some work, and then sat on the connection with the transaction open for
days. But this is not a common case and is certainly much more broken,
if only because other RDBMS behave more reasonably in the COMMIT-BEGIN
scenario.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"La persona que no quería pecar / estaba obligada a sentarse
en duras y empinadas sillas / desprovistas, por cierto
de blandos atenuantes" (Patricio Vogel)