On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:
> On 2013-09-11 15:06:23 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > One thing that this made me wonder is why we don't have > transaction_timeout, > > or maybe transaction_idle_timeout. > > Because it's harder than it sounds, at least if you want to support > idle-in-transactions. Note that we do not support pg_cancel_backend() > for those yet... > So we are left with pg_terminate_backend in a cron job. That mostly seems to work, because usually apps that abandon connections in the idle-in-transaction state will never check back on them anyway, but cancel would be nicer. > > Also, I think it might lead to papering over actual issues with > applications leaving transactions open. I don't really see a valid > reason for an application needing cancelling of long idle transactions. > Some of us make a living, at least partially, by papering over issues with 3rd party applications that we have no control over! Cheers, Jeff
