Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 01:55 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Joe Conway (mail(at)joeconway(dot)com) wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2015 01:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> I agree with Pavel. Having a transaction timeout just does not make any
>>>> sense. I can see absolutely no use for it. An idle-in-transaction
>>>> timeout, on the other hand, is very useful.
>>>
>>> +1 -- agreed
>>
>> I'm not sure of that. I can certainly see a use for transaction
>> timeouts- after all, they hold locks and can be very disruptive in the
>> long run. Further, there are cases where a transaction is normally very
>> fast and in a corner case it becomes extremely slow and disruptive to
>> the rest of the system. In those cases, having a timeout for it is
>> valuable.
>
> I could see a use for both, having written scripts which do both.

+1.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company