| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Li Japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com" <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Terminate the idle sessions |
| Date: | 2021-01-07 03:51:01 |
| Message-ID: | 139265.1609991461@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> One of the strange things about these errors is that they're
> asynchronous/unsolicited, but they appear to the client to be the
> response to their next request (if it doesn't eat ECONNRESET instead).
Right, which is what makes class 57 (operator intervention) seem
attractive to me. From the client's standpoint these look little
different from ERRCODE_ADMIN_SHUTDOWN or ERRCODE_CRASH_SHUTDOWN,
which are in that category.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2021-01-07 03:53:23 | Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-01-07 03:43:08 | Re: vacuum_cost_page_miss default value and modern hardware |