From: | Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: idle in transaction, why |
Date: | 2017-11-06 20:50:25 |
Message-ID: | 81aa980b-fb4c-e9b4-fa82-9f14df71a2df@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/06/2017 01:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> idle_in_transaction_session_timeout | 0 | default |
>> | | A value of 0 turns off the timeout. | user
> Meh. I think we're barking up the wrong tree anyway: so far as I can
> find, there is no error message reading 'idle transaction timeout'
> in the existing PG sources (and I sure hope no committer would have
> thought that such an ambiguous message text was satisfactory).
> So I think your error is coming from client-side or third-party code.
> What other moving parts have you got in there?
>
> regards, tom lane
The most likely culprit is JOOQ, which I chose as a learning experience
(normally I use ORM tools). But that said, I just ran the same data
into my test env, (postgres 10.0 (real) on centos 6.9, ubuntu client)
and all went swimmingly. It's a sizable payload (several batches of
over 100K items, deserialized from json) and takes 5 minutes to save.
I was hoping to blame the virt or the beta. Not a good time to start
doubt JOOQ
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rob Sargent | 2017-11-06 21:03:33 | Re: idle in transaction, why |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-06 20:41:32 | Re: idle in transaction, why |