| From: | Benjamin Leis <benleis1(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_cancel_backend and pg_terminate_backend |
| Date: | 2023-04-19 20:13:35 |
| Message-ID: | CADP9qHs6=7FxYzFOS869o9Dg8dbjDYrqJZqKQwBDp1OU=E0dfw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
We use pg_terminate within some monitoring code for all the long running
things in our system with no issues.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023, 1:11 PM Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Wells Oliver schrieb am 19.04.2023 um 21:41:
> > I usually prefer pg_cancel_backend because it seems.. nicer, but
> > lately I've had a troublesome user who leaves transactions open and
> > I've scripted up a call to pg_terminate_backend after 60 minutes in
> > an idle transaction. It works well.
>
> Why don't you use the idle_in_transaction_session_timeout to do this
> automatically?
>
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Holger Jakobs | 2023-04-19 20:48:18 | Re: pg_cancel_backend and pg_terminate_backend |
| Previous Message | Wells Oliver | 2023-04-19 20:13:18 | Re: pg_cancel_backend and pg_terminate_backend |