| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |