From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc Mitchell" <marcm(at)eisolution(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'Warren Little'" <wlittle(at)securitylending(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: idle in transaction |
Date: | 2004-02-15 17:29:02 |
Message-ID: | 9001.1076866142@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
"Marc Mitchell" <marcm(at)eisolution(dot)com> writes:
> So long as the idled transaction isn't holding any locks on any data
> resources, I don't know if this condition is a bad thing. It would be
> nice to be able to differentiate between a transaction that has been
> "declared" but has yet to really begin issuing any statements and take
> locks from transactions that are idle "mid-transaction".
You guys should probably take this to the pgsql-jdbc list, since that's
where the people who know the innards of the JDBC driver hang out.
I just saw a patch go by on that list that purports to
* Keeps track of the current transaction state.
* Prevents starting a new transaction until actually required.
so that may address your concern. I'm not enough of a JDBC hacker
to be sure though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeremy Smith | 2004-02-15 19:24:20 | Re: SSH connection timing out |
Previous Message | Marc Mitchell | 2004-02-15 17:10:50 | Re: idle in transaction |