On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Merlin Moncure <
mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Amit Kapila <
amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> It is 100% true. But the users can do strange things. If we solve idle
> >>>> transactions and not idle session, then they are able to increase
> >>>> max_connections to thousands with happy smile in face.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have not strong idea about how to solve it well - maybe introduce
> >>>> transaction_idle_timeout and session_idle_timeout?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What exactly do we want to define session_idle_timeout? Some
> >>> possibilities:
> >>> a. Reset the session related variables like transaction, prepared
> >>> statements, etc. and retain it for connection pool kind of stuff
> >>> b. Exit from the session
> >>
> >>
> >> b is safe state - and currently it is only one state, that we can forward
> >> to client side (with keep_alive packets) - so I prefer b
> >>
> >
> > Okay, I think one more point to consider is that it would be preferable to
> > have such an option for backend sessions and not for other processes
> > like WalSender.
>
> All right...I see the usage.. I withdraw my objection to 'session'
> prefix then now that I understand the case. So, do you agree that:
>
> *) session_idle_timeout: dumps the backend after X time in 'idle' state
>
Agreed.
> and
> *) transaction_timeout: cancels transaction after X time, regardless of state
>
I am not sure about this, let us see if any body else has opinion about
this parameter.
