On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 2015-11-03 3:42 GMT+01:00 Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>:
>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@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?  Some
>>> possibilities:
>>> a. Reset the session related variables like transaction, prepared
>>> statements, etc. and retain it for connection pool kind of stuff
>>> b. Exit from the session
>> b 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.

All right...I see the usage..  I withdraw my objection to 'session'
prefix then now that I understand the case.  So, do you agree that:

*) session_idle_timeout: dumps the backend after X time in 'idle' state
 *) transaction_timeout: cancels transaction after X time, regardless of state

sounds good?


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to