From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Li Japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(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: | 2020-11-16 23:59:15 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaRyr3jOfOTpaiPHYMcXPQkB3enXgP88FRg0jFH_2J_SA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 5:41 AM Li Japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks for your review! Attached.
>
Reading the doc changes:
I'd rather not name postgres_fdw explicitly, or at least not solely, as a
reason for setting this to zero. Additionally, using postgres_fdw within
the server doesn't cause issues, its using postgres_fdw and the remote
server having this setting set to zero that causes a problem.
<note>
Consider setting this for specific users instead of as a server default.
Client connections managed by connection poolers, or initiated indirectly
like those by a remote postgres_fdw using server, should probably be
excluded from this timeout.
Text within <para> should be indented one space (you missed both under
listitem).
I'd suggest a comment that aside from a bit of resource consumption idle
sessions do not interfere with the long-running stability of the server,
unlike idle-in-transaction sessions which are controlled by the other
configuration setting.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-11-17 00:08:32 | Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-16 23:34:00 | Re: [PATCH] Covering SPGiST index |