Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again
Date: 2009-04-22 18:28:45
Message-ID: 99ce700999fbe0200192b6a0ddf0ac2b@biglumber.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

> Anyway, maybe question zero is whether anyone else thinks this is
> important enough to justify extra work in the area.

Yes. For every user that complains on the list, there are a dozen other
quiet ones who have been bit by the same.

> The main objection to just setting max_prepared_transactions to zero by
> default is that it would kill our ability to test the feature in the
> standard regression tests.

I highly support setting it to zero by default. If our testing process
cannot handle changing things on the fly, then that process should be fixed.

> Therefore, the default out-of-the-box configuration
> of Postgres shouldn't allow PREPARE TRANSACTION at all.

Seems overkill, IMHO.

> Do we want to treat old prepared xacts as being as dangerous
> as an impending wraparound?

Yes.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
End Point Corporation
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200904221428
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAknvYdIACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgEagCffiTkxT3iRB2IDpADIu0eZspG
Pj8AniqBsi0sYuJvxzPWXIgKNk1QApEQ
=oBJJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-04-22 18:30:36 Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-04-22 18:27:17 Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again