On 2016-03-15 14:21:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
I'm fine with both. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
