Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, adnandursun(at)asrinbilisim(dot)com(dot)tr, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
Date: 2005-05-01 15:37:47
Message-ID: 24597.1114961867@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The problem, as I understand it, is that if you have a long-running
> query and the client process disappears, the query keeps running and
> holds whatever resources it may have until it finishes.

There is a trivial solution for this: it's called statement_timeout.

If the concern is that a process may block other processes for a long
time, what does it matter whether the client is still connected or not?
It's the long-running command in itself that is the problem. So you
limit the time the command can run.

It might be interesting to think about a transaction_timeout as well,
to bound the time locks can be held. But none of this has anything
to do with "high availability" as I understand the term. It looks
more like a forcing function to make your users fix poorly-written
client software ;-)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message adnandursun 2005-05-01 16:34:40 Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-05-01 15:29:42 Re: SPI bug.

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-05-01 15:58:39 Re: Problem with Create Domain example
Previous Message Dennis Bjorklund 2005-05-01 14:56:13 Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1