From: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Autovacuum and idle_session_timeout |
Date: | 2021-12-31 02:01:47 |
Message-ID: | MEYP282MB166937429016B7184960D756B6469@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 at 00:24, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 18:53, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>>> pg_dump works in a single transaction, so it's already dealt with
>>> idle_in_transaction_timeout. Though I guess setting both would work too.
>
>> Attached fix this, please consider reveiew it. Thanks.
>
> This seems rather pointless to me. The idle-session timeout is only
> activated in PostgresMain's input loop, so it will never be reached
> in autovacuum or other background workers. (The same is true for
> idle_in_transaction_session_timeout, so the fact that somebody made
> autovacuum.c clear that looks like cargo-cult programming from here,
> not useful code.) And as for pg_dump, how would it ever trigger the
> timeout? It's not going to sit there thinking, especially not
> outside a transaction.
>
Thanks for your clarify! If the timeout never be reached, should we remove
those settings?
--
Regrads,
Japin Li.
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2021-12-31 02:26:11 | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-12-31 01:46:52 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |