| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Date: | 2014-06-24 16:52:34 |
| Message-ID: | 53A9ACD2.1010904@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/24/2014 06:43 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>> 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'd go for even shorter: 48 hours. I'd suggest 24 hours, but that would
> trip up some users who just need really long pg_dumps.
Why would pg_dump be idle for 24 hours?
--
Vik
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-06-24 16:53:08 | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-06-24 16:47:59 | Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) |