Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1JdT4P0Y8qwN9YPB9re7zb2-=Ep8_9HEdkSUDr86kdR7A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle in transaction' sessions (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Request: pg_cancel_backend variant that handles 'idle
in transaction' sessions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-11-03 3:42 GMT+01:00 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>:On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:It is 100% true. But the users can do strange things. If we solve idle transactions and not idle session, then they are able to increase max_connections to thousands with happy smile in face.I have not strong idea about how to solve it well - maybe introduce transaction_idle_timeout and session_idle_timeout?What exactly do we want to define session_idle_timeout? Somepossibilities:a. Reset the session related variables like transaction, preparedstatements, etc. and retain it for connection pool kind of stuffb. Exit from the sessionb is safe state - and currently it is only one state, that we can forward to client side (with keep_alive packets) - so I prefer b
Okay, I think one more point to consider is that it would be preferable to
have such an option for backend sessions and not for other processes
like WalSender.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: