| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: idle_in_transaction_timeout |
| Date: | 2014-06-04 03:37:28 |
| Message-ID: | 6110.1401853048@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I thought the reason why this hasn't been implemented before now is
> that sending an ErrorResponse to the client will result in a loss of
> protocol sync.
Hmm ... you are right that this isn't as simple as an ereport(ERROR),
but I'm not sure it's impossible. We could for instance put the backend
into skip-till-Sync state so that it effectively ignored the next command
message. Causing that to happen might be impracticably messy, though.
I'm not sure whether cancel-transaction behavior is enough better than
cancel-session to warrant extra effort here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-06-04 03:53:00 | Re: recovery testing for beta |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-06-04 03:28:34 | Re: pg_stat directory and pg_stat_statements |