| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Wheeler <hippysoyboy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Siddharth Jain <siddhsql(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: what happens if a failed transaction is not rolled back? |
| Date: | 2023-04-24 20:24:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZ+i6LMi0DyD6=H_FrmbErpK7q39Tq7GypZ_6FZ6FRNFw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 12:56 PM David Wheeler <hippysoyboy(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Apr 2023, at 1:47 am, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>
> There isn't anything special about a failed transaction compared to any
> other transaction that you leave open.
>
>
> Now I’m curious. Does it have the same impact on performance that an idle
> in transaction connection has? Eg does it prevent vacuum? Does it still
> hold locks?
>
>
Absent documentation to the contrary I would expect the system to at best
be in an idle-in-transaction state as-if the failed command never was
executed. The concept of savepoints, whether in use in a particular
transaction, would require at least that much state be preserved.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-04-24 21:20:13 | Re: what happens if a failed transaction is not rolled back? |
| Previous Message | David Wheeler | 2023-04-24 19:56:22 | Re: what happens if a failed transaction is not rolled back? |