| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Marat Buharov <marat(dot)buharov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: client_connection_check_interval default value |
| Date: | 2026-02-06 00:18:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+=UXHJ2mmY3SXPFAV-79QcSCxM-4015te4Ka-5L_ewsow@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 4:01 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think enabling it by default is a nonstarter, because it changes
> behavior in a significant way. Specifically, it's always been the
> case that if the client disconnects during a non-SELECT query (or
> anything that doesn't produce output), the backend would complete that
> query before ending the session.
Ha, I hadn't even thought about the possibility of fire-and-forget...
> I think it's very likely that there
> are users depending on that behavior.
From a quick search, yeah, probably:
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-02-06 00:58:28 | Re: pg_upgrade: optimize replication slot caught-up check |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2026-02-06 00:13:09 | Re: Unfortunate pushing down of expressions below sort |