| From: | "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Li Japin' <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 05:22:35 |
| Message-ID: | OSBPR01MB31578B0404627324A0F74158F5E30@OSBPR01MB3157.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Li,
> Thanks for your advice! Attached v4.
I confirmed it. OK.
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ typedef enum TimeoutId
> STANDBY_DEADLOCK_TIMEOUT,
> STANDBY_TIMEOUT,
> STANDBY_LOCK_TIMEOUT,
> + IDLE_SESSION_TIMEOUT,
> IDLE_IN_TRANSACTION_SESSION_TIMEOUT,
> /* First user-definable timeout reason */
> USER_TIMEOUT,
I'm not familiar with timeout, but I can see that the priority of idle-session is set lower than transaction-timeout.
Could you explain the reason? In my image this timeout locates at the lowest layer, so it might have the lowest
priority.
Other codes are still checked :-(.
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-11-16 05:44:38 | Re: Add Information during standby recovery conflicts |
| Previous Message | Seino Yuki | 2020-11-16 03:28:38 | Re: Feature improvement for pg_stat_statements |