From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend |
Date: | 2004-07-25 18:03:32 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E407B39A@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org on behalf of Magnus Hagander
Sent: Sun 7/25/2004 12:07 PM
To: Tom Lane; Bruce Momjian
Cc: Josh Berkus; PostgreSQL-patches
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Function to kill backend
> >much further. I recall being voted down though ...
> That's not quite the argument I think I had :-) But withuot being able
> to kill the backends, there just no way for me to handle the sitaution
> when I have a hundred clients eating up all available connections and/or
> memory, just sitting idle, because of some freak bug in a client.
The first time I used it was for precisely this reason - some buggy PHP code opened hundreds of connections to a dev server which then remained open doing nothing except wasting resources. It was particularly useful in that case as I didn't have access to the web server at the time.
Shortly afterwards I added support to pgAdmin's server status tool which has proven quite handy (although I will admit, mainly for canceling ather than terminating).
I don't know the details of how it works, but is it any worse/better than 'kill -9' (which iirc is no longer considered an absolute no-no)?
Regards, Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2004-07-25 20:23:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-07-25 17:34:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Function to kill backend |