| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: zombie connections |
| Date: | 2020-04-03 14:43:48 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYM0sWWH4J1H0-cBsJfWyuzF53da3eFp_EDa53uOT=ZWA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:34 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In general I think the threshold problem for a patch like this will be
> "how do you keep the added overhead down". As Robert noted upthread,
> timeout.c is quite a bit shy of being able to handle timeouts that
> persist across statements. I don't think that there's any fundamental
> reason it can't be improved, but it will need improvements.
Why do we need that? If we're not executing a statement, we're
probably trying to read() from the socket, and we'll notice if that
returns 0 or -1. So it seems like we only need periodic checks while
there's a statement in progress.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-03 14:59:58 | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2020-04-03 14:43:17 | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |