From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Time limit for a process to hold Content lock in Buffer Cache |
Date: | 2013-05-23 14:53:48 |
Message-ID: | CAOeZVicSK7HfYXnFizMSAWO6ES_7LXOWd5oubfFSJWObp6+WSQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I was musing over a possible condition where a rogue client gets the
>> backend to process queries which take a *lot* of time(note, this is
>> only in my head atm.I may be completely wrong here).
>
>> Wouldnt something on the lines of a timeout help here?
>
> You can already set statement_timeout for that. I don't think worrying
> about it at the level of buffer content locks would be terribly helpful,
> since those locks are generally held only for long enough to read or
> write the page or to verify the visibility of rows on it. Even if the
> client is rogue, it can't affect those timings too much.
Right. I seem to be understanding this now.
BTW, what is your opinion on a rogue client's damaging capabilities?
Theoretically, what can a client which tries to stall the backend
target?
Regards,
Atri
--
Regards,
Atri
l'apprenant
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-23 15:01:01 | Re: Time limit for a process to hold Content lock in Buffer Cache |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-23 14:48:27 | Re: Time limit for a process to hold Content lock in Buffer Cache |