| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 15:22:42 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqHitjP6=vwjAiuSnvu+Ag9QTnscnKpnEje3NDD0EnhSzw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> If you let an uncooperative user issue arbitrary SQL queries, he can
> do any number of things to put server performance into the tank.
> For instance, take out exclusive locks on all your tables and just
> go to sleep (although I think this is limited by table permissions in
> recent PG versions). Or start up an unconstrained join on some giant
> tables. etc. etc. This isn't an area that people have felt deserved
> adding a lot of overhead to control.
In such a case, would statement_timeout apply? If using
statement_timeout, would the longest a client can stall server be
limited to statement_timeout amount of time?
--
Amit Langote
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-05-23 15:26:35 | Re: streaming replication, "frozen snapshot backup on it" and missing relfile (postgres 9.2.3 on xfs + LVM) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-23 15:16:10 | Re: Time limit for a process to hold Content lock in Buffer Cache |