On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:22:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Kellerer <sham...@gmx.net> writes: > > Tom Lane schrieb am 22.01.2020 um 16:05: > >> Right. It's the XA transaction manager's job not to forget uncommitted > >> transactions. Reasoning as though no TM exists is not only not very > >> relevant, but it might lead you to put in features that actually > >> make the TM's job harder. In particular, a timeout (or any other > >> mechanism that leads PG to abort or commit a prepared transaction > >> of its own accord) does that. > > > That's a fair point, but the reality is that not all XA transaction managers > > do a good job with that. > > If you've got a crappy XA manager, you should get a better one, not > ask us to put in features that make PG unsafe to use with well-designed > XA managers.
I think the big question is whether we want to make active prepared transactions more visible to administrators, either during server start or idle duration. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
