On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 8:41 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: > > Hm. I also noticed when looking at this that aborted transactions with > > savepoints are not subjected to the idle_in_transaction timeout which is > a > > bit surprising. > > Hmm ... I think it's intentional that idle_in_transaction no longer > applies once the transaction has failed. But if there's a live > savepoint, then we should enforce it since resources may still be > held. Seems like a bug, if your observation is accurate. > > hm, double checking, it's not. merlin
