Re: Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived

On 02/03/2016 11:36 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 2/3/16 4:05 PM, David Steele wrote:
>> 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.

That was the consensus last time I presented this bikeshed for painting.

> Except you end up losing stuff like every GUC you've set, existing temp
> tables, etc. For an application that presumably doesn't matter, but for
> a user connection it would be a PITA.
>
> I wouldn't put a bunch of effort into it though. Dropping the connection
> is certainly better than nothing.

You could always put SET idle_in_transaction_session_timeout = 0; in
your .psqlrc file to exempt your manual sessions from it. Or change it
just for your user or something.
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support