On 06/03/2014 02:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >> Out of curiosity, how much harder would it have been just to abort the >> transaction? I think breaking the connection is probably the right >> behavior, but before folks start arguing it out, I wanted to know if >> aborting the transaction is even a reasonable thing to do. > > FWIW, I think aborting the transaction is probably better, especially > if the patch is designed to do nothing to already-aborted transactions. > If the client is still there, it will see the abort as a failure in its > next query, which is less likely to confuse it completely than a > connection loss. (I think, anyway.)
Personally, I think we'll get about equal amounts of confusion either way. > The argument that we might want to close the connection to free up > connection slots doesn't seem to me to hold water as long as we allow > a client that *isn't* inside a transaction to sit on an idle connection > forever. Perhaps there is room for a second timeout that limits how > long you can sit idle independently of being in a transaction, but that > isn't this patch. Like I said, I'm marginally in favor of terminating the connection, but I'd be completely satisfied with a timeout which aborted the transaction instead. Assuming that change doesn't derail this patch and keep it from getting into 9.5, of course. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
