On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:41:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > On 06/18/2014 12:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > >>> There are plenty of badly-written applications which "auto-begin", that > >>> is, they issue a "BEGIN;" immediately after every "COMMIT;" whether or > >>> not there's any additional work to do. This is a major source of IIT > >>> and the timeout should not ignore it. > >> > >> Nonsense. We explicitly don't do anything useful until the first actual > >> command arrives, precisely to avoid that problem. > > > > Oh, we don't allocate a snapshot? If not, then no objection here. > > The only problem I see is that it makes the semantics kind of weird > and confusing. "Kill connections that are idle in transaction for too > long" is a pretty clear spec; "kill connections that are idle in > transaction except if they haven't executed any commands yet because > we think you don't care about that case" is not quite as clear, and > not really what the GUC name says, and maybe not what everybody wants, > and maybe masterminding.
"Kill connections that are idle in non-empty transaction block for too long" -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
