David Steele wrote: > The important thing about this implementation was that nothing was > terminated unless it had exceed a timeout AND was blocking another > process.
This seems a nice idea, but you need to take the effect on vacuum of idle-in-xact sessions too. If the operator left for the day and their session doesn't block any other process, the next day you could find some tables bloated to such extreme as to cause problems later on. Surely the operator can review their terminal to re-do the work, in case it was valuable. (If it was valuable, why didn't they commit the transaction?) -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
