On 06/24/2014 07:50 AM, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 06/24/2014 04:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> If the local transaction is actually idle in transaction and the local >>>> server doesn't have a timeout, we're no worse off than before this patch. >> >> I think we are. First, the correct timeout is a matter of >> remote-server-policy, not local-server-policy. If the remote server >> wants to boot people with long-running idle transactions, it's >> entitled to do that, and postgres_fdw shouldn't assume that it's >> "special". > > So how would the local transaction ever get its work done? What option > does it have to tell the remote server that it isn't actually idling, it > just doesn't need to use the remote connection for a while? > > Once the remote times out, the local transaction is doomed (and won't > even know it until it tries to commit). If we don't allow the fdw to be > special, then the local transaction can't run at all. Ever.
I'm unclear on how the FDW could be special. From the point of the remote server, how does it even know that it's receiving an FDW connection and not some other kind of connection? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
