Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions

Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2015-11-04 22:14 GMT+01:00 Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>:
> 
> > On 11/04/2015 01:11 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> >> I am sorry, but I have a different experience from GoodData. The few
> >> hours autovacuum is usual. So probably, there should be exception for
> >> autovacuum, dump, ..
> >
> > But autovacuum and dump are not idle in transaction or am I missing
> > something?
> 
> last Merlin's proposal was about transaction_timeout not
> transaction_idle_timeout

I agree with Pavel.  Having a transaction timeout just does not make any
sense.  I can see absolutely no use for it.  An idle-in-transaction
timeout, on the other hand, is very useful.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services