On 2/3/16 8:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> "Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com> writes: >>> On 02/03/2016 02:52 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>>> Well, my view is that if somebody wants an alternative behavior >>>> besides dropping the connection, they can write a patch to provide >>>> that as an additional option. That, too, has been discussed before. >>>> But the fact that somebody might want that doesn't make this a bad or >>>> useless behavior. Indeed, I'd venture that more people would want >>>> this than would want that. >> >>> Something feels wrong about just dropping the connection. >> >> I have the same uneasy feeling about it as JD. However, you could >> certainly argue that if the client application has lost its marbles >> to the extent of allowing a transaction to time out, there's no good >> reason to suppose that it will wake up any time soon, ... > > <...> But what I think really happens is > some badly-written Java application loses track of a connection > someplace and just never finds it again. <...>
That's what I've seen over and over again. And then sometimes it's not a badly-written Java application, but me, and in that case I definitely want the connection killed. Without logging, if you please. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
