On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Idle hanging transactions from poorly written applications are the > bane of my existence. Several months back one of them took down one > of hour production websites for several hours. > > Unfortunately, the only way to deal with them is to terminate the > backend which is heavy handed and in some cases causes further damage. > Something like pg_cancel_transaction(pid) would be nice; it would > end the transaction regardless if in an actual statement or not. >
Why pg_cancel_backend(pid) is not sufficient for the above use case? Basically you want to rollback current transaction, I think that can be achieved by pg_cancel_backend. > Similarly, transaction_timeout would be a lot more effective than > statement_timeout. > I think here by transaction_timeout you mean to say cancel all transactions that are idle for transaction_timeout time. So it is better to call it as transaction_idle_timeout. Having said that I am not sure if holding such a connection is meaningful either because I think there is high probablity that user of such a session might not perform any further action for a long time, so why not have idle_timeout to indicate the termination of session if it is idle for idle_timeout time. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
