To: "Marc Mitchell" <marcm@eisolution.com>
Cc: "'Warren Little'" <wlittle@securitylending.com>,
 pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: idle in transaction 
In-reply-to: <001501c3f3e6$aa530120$6901a8c0@MarcM8500> 
References: <001501c3f3e6$aa530120$6901a8c0@MarcM8500>
Comments: In-reply-to "Marc Mitchell" <marcm@eisolution.com>
	message dated "Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:10:50 -0600"
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 12:29:02 -0500
Message-ID: <9001.1076866142@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"Marc Mitchell" <marcm@eisolution.com> writes:
> So long as the idled transaction isn't holding any locks on any data
> resources, I don't know if this condition is a bad thing.  It would be
> nice to be able to differentiate between a transaction that has been
> "declared" but has yet to really begin issuing any statements and take
> locks from transactions that are idle "mid-transaction".

You guys should probably take this to the pgsql-jdbc list, since that's
where the people who know the innards of the JDBC driver hang out.

I just saw a patch go by on that list that purports to
    * Keeps track of the current transaction state.
    * Prevents starting a new transaction until actually required.
so that may address your concern.  I'm not enough of a JDBC hacker
to be sure though.

			regards, tom lane