Re: Idle In Transaction Session Timeout, revived

On 2/3/16 8:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> On 02/03/2016 02:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> Well, my view is that if somebody wants an alternative behavior
>>>> besides dropping the connection, they can write a patch to provide
>>>> that as an additional option. That, too, has been discussed before.
>>>> But the fact that somebody might want that doesn't make this a bad or
>>>> useless behavior. Indeed, I'd venture that more people would want
>>>> this than would want that.
>>
>>> Something feels wrong about just dropping the connection.
>>
>> I have the same uneasy feeling about it as JD. However, you could
>> certainly argue that if the client application has lost its marbles
>> to the extent of allowing a transaction to time out, there's no good
>> reason to suppose that it will wake up any time soon, ...
>
> <...> But what I think really happens is
> some badly-written Java application loses track of a connection
> someplace and just never finds it again. <...>

That's what I've seen over and over again. And then sometimes it's not
a badly-written Java application, but me, and in that case I definitely
want the connection killed. Without logging, if you please.

--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net