Re: Transaction timeout

From: Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Transaction timeout
Date: 2023-10-10 21:07:47
Message-ID: CANNMO+KeBBTZSm_SQTKqXwnTYbUbYC18Su9xSujfrhFc1r8U8w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 1:16 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> With the v4 patch, I found that timeout errors no longer occur during the idle in
> transaction phase. Instead, they occur when the next statement is executed. Is this
> the intended behavior? I thought some users might want to use the transaction timeout
> feature to prevent prolonged transactions and promptly release resources (e.g., locks)
> in case of a timeout, similar to idle_in_transaction_session_timeout.

I agree – it seems reasonable to interrupt transaction immediately
when the timeout occurs. This was the idea – to determine the maximum
possible time for all transactions that is allowed on a server, to
avoid too long-lasting locking and not progressing xmin horizon.

That being said, I also think this wording in the docs:

+ Setting <varname>transaction_timeout</varname> in
+ <filename>postgresql.conf</filename> is not recommended
because it would
+ affect all sessions.

It was inherited from statement_timeout, where I also find this
wording too one-sided. There are certain situations where we do want
global setting to be set – actually, any large OLTP case (to be on
lower risk side; those users who need longer timeout, can set it when
needed, but by default we do need very restrictive timeouts, usually <
1 minute, like we do in HTTP or application servers). I propose this:
> Setting transaction_timeout in postgresql.conf should be done with caution because it affects all sessions.

Looking at the v4 of the patch, a couple of more comments that might
be helpful for v5 (which is planned, as I understand):

1) it might be beneficial to add tests for more complex scenarios,
e.g., subtransactions

2) In the error message:

+ errmsg("canceling statement due to %s%s%s%s%s", lock_reason, comma1,
+ stmt_reason, comma2, tx_reason)));

– it seems we can have excessive commas here

3) Perhaps, we should say that we cancel the transaction, not
statement (especially in the case when it is happening in the
idle-in-transaction state).

Thanks for working on this feature!

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jean-Christophe Arnu 2023-10-10 21:42:57 Re: FDW pushdown of non-collated functions
Previous Message David Steele 2023-10-10 21:06:45 Re: The danger of deleting backup_label