Re: vacuumdb idle processes

On 6/15/21 3:20 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 8:43 AM Nikhil Shetty <nikhil(dot)dba04(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:nikhil(dot)dba04(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I tested this scenario and it seems if vacuumdb is started with
> multiple jobs and one of the jobs doesn't complete due to a lock or
> whatever reason, other jobs will stay idle and don't release the
> connection until the stuck job is finished.
>
> For my understanding, why do we need this behaviour?
>
>
> I don't think we **need** this behavior, it is just a simple way to wait
> for each one to finish and then close it; waiting for each specific one in
> the order it is present in the list.  Is there an important reason we need
> a more complex behavior, closing each one as soon as it becomes idle once
> the work queue is empty?

"Disconnect when you're finished" is Best Practice, no?

--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.