On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 8:41 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <[email protected]> writes: > > Hm. I also noticed when looking at this that aborted transactions with > > savepoints are not subjected to the idle_in_transaction timeout which is > a > > bit surprising. > > Hmm ... I think it's intentional that idle_in_transaction no longer > applies once the transaction has failed. But if there's a live > savepoint, then we should enforce it since resources may still be > held. Seems like a bug, if your observation is accurate. > > hm, double checking, it's not. merlin
