From: | "Wetmore, Matthew (CTR)" <Matthew(dot)Wetmore(at)express-scripts(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Wells Oliver <wells(dot)oliver(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | pg_cancel_backend and pg_terminate_backend |
Date: | 2023-04-19 19:51:17 |
Message-ID: | 83b2ee4970954aebb6dbe7d8f5f6e87b@express-scripts.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
pg_cancel_backend()
A function which cancels a backend's current query
pg_terminate_backend()
A function which instructs a backend to terminate
From: Wells Oliver <wells(dot)oliver(at)gmail(dot)com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 2:42 PM
To: pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] pg_cancel_backend and pg_terminate_backend
I usually prefer pg_cancel_backend because it seems.. nicer, but lately I've had a troublesome user who leaves transactions open and I've scripted up a call to pg_terminate_backend after 60 minutes in an idle transaction. It works well.
Question: is there any server impact beyond that user's transaction when calling pg_terminate_backend? I feel like there _used_ to be, maybe in PG9, where I recall maybe seeing a server disconnect or something when using terminate.
Just curious about this approach. Thanks.
--
Wells Oliver
wells(dot)oliver(at)gmail(dot)com<mailto:wellsoliver(at)gmail(dot)com>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Wetmore, Matthew (CTR) | 2023-04-19 19:53:19 | pg_cancel_backend and pg_terminate_backend |
Previous Message | MichaelDBA | 2023-04-19 19:46:29 | Re: pg_cancel_backend and pg_terminate_backend |