| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived |
| Date: | 2016-02-03 22:05:44 |
| Message-ID: | 56B279B8.3010601@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/3/16 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Wouldn't it be more sensible to just roll the transaction back and not
>>> disconnect?
>
> I'm not sure how messy this would be in practice. But if we think that
> killing the whole session is not desirable but something we're doing for
> expediency, then it would be worth looking into that approach.
I think killing the session is a perfectly sensible thing to do in this
case. Everything meaningful that was done in the session will be rolled
back - no need to waste resources keeping the connection open.
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-02-03 22:36:18 | Re: Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-03 21:25:03 | Re: Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived |