From: | "Ideriha, Takeshi" <ideriha(dot)takeshi(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Tatsuo Ishii' <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: idle-in-transaction timeout error does not give a hint |
Date: | 2018-11-28 09:45:33 |
Message-ID: | 4E72940DA2BF16479384A86D54D0988A6F3BDC85@G01JPEXMBKW04 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> Hi, it makes sense to me. One can submit transaction again same as
>> other cases you mentioned.
>>
>> I didn't attach the patch but according to my simple experiment in
>> psql the output would become the following:
>>
>> FATAL: terminating connection due to idle-in-transaction timeout
>> HINT: In a moment you should be able to reconnect to the
>> database and repeat your command.
>
>Alternative HINT message would be something like:
>
>HINT: In a moment you should be able to reconnect to the
> database and restart your transaction.
>
>This could make the meaning of the error (transaction aborted) cleaner and might give
>a better suggestion to the user.
Agreed. Changing "command" to "transaction" seems more accurate. People might think
only the command they hit is not sent but transaction is still alive though it's of course unnatural
that transaction is alive after connection is terminated.
In this case you could change the comment issued by other errors mentioned while you're at it.
Regards,
Takeshi Ideriha
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2018-11-28 10:01:03 | VOPS-2.0 |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-11-28 09:34:41 | Re: "pg_ctl: the PID file ... is empty" at end of make check |