On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-03-08 16:42:37 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> - I really wonder if the decision to ignore sessions that are idle in >> transaction (aborted) should revisited. Consider this: >> >> rhaas=# begin; >> BEGIN >> rhaas=# lock table pg_class; >> LOCK TABLE >> rhaas=# savepoint a; >> SAVEPOINT >> rhaas=# select 1/0; >> ERROR: division by zero > > Probably only if the toplevel transaction is also aborted. Might not be > entirely trivial to determine.
Yes, that would be one way to do it - or just ignore whether it's aborted or not and make the timeout always apply. That seems pretty reasonable, too, because a transaction that's idle in transaction and aborted could easily be one that the client has forgotten about, even if it's not hanging onto any resources other than a connection slot. And, if it turns out that the client didn't forget about it, well, they don't lose anything by retrying the transaction on a new connection anyway. On a procedural note, I'm happy to push this patch through to commit if it gets updated in the near future. If not, we should mark it Returned with Feedback and Vik can resubmit for 9.7. Tempus fugit. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
