| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, adnandursun(at)asrinbilisim(dot)com(dot)tr, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
| Date: | 2005-05-02 06:01:14 |
| Message-ID: | 11109.1115013674@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> I would prefer an idle timeout if it's not costly. Because otherwise
> estimates need to be made about how long VACUUM and backup could take,
> and set the timeout longer.
Why? No one has suggested that the same timeout must be applied to
every connection. Clients that are going to do maintenance stuff like
VACUUM could just disable the timeout.
This does bring up thoughts of whether the timeout needs to be a
protected variable (SUSET or higher). I'd argue not, since a
noncooperative client can certainly cause performance issues aplenty
no matter what you try to impose with timeouts.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2005-05-02 06:06:09 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2005-05-02 06:00:08 | Re: SPI bug. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2005-05-02 06:06:09 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-02 05:56:38 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |