| From: | Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Victor Sterpu <victor(at)caido(dot)ro>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Lock problem |
| Date: | 2014-04-02 20:01:43 |
| Message-ID: | A76B25F2823E954C9E45E32FA49D70EC7A9C3B34@mail.corp.perceptron.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Victor Sterpu
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:25 PM
> To: Victor Sterpu; Merlin Moncure
> Cc: PostgreSQL General
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Lock problem
>
> I'm sure is not right, but is a there a server side solution for such sitations?
> A configuration - timeout for idle transactions.
>
I don't think PG has such configuration parameter.
But, you could easily write a function (say in PgPlSQL) and run it on schedule, where you could check "IDLE IN TRANSACTION" session and compare their start_time to system time, and then based on your criteria you could kill suspect session/transaction.
But this could be dangerous; some long-running transactions could be perfectly valid.
Regards,
Igor Neyman
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shaun Thomas | 2014-04-02 20:14:43 | Re: SSD Drives |
| Previous Message | Steve Atkins | 2014-04-02 19:56:59 | Re: COPY v. java performance comparison |