Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sPbXt-005PjG-7t for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 05 Jul 2024 05:31:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sPbXr-006SYS-8R for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 05 Jul 2024 05:31:43 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sPbXq-006SYI-UQ for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 05 Jul 2024 05:31:43 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1sPbXo-000TsZ-Rv for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 05 Jul 2024 05:31:42 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 4655Va8A142437; Fri, 5 Jul 2024 01:31:36 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: "David G. Johnston" cc: Murthy Nunna , "pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org" Subject: Re: psql help In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to "David G. Johnston" message dated "Thu, 04 Jul 2024 22:19:35 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <142435.1720157496.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 01:31:36 -0400 Message-ID: <142436.1720157496@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk "David G. Johnston" writes: > On Thursday, July 4, 2024, Murthy Nunna wrote: >> pg_terminate_backend(pid) will not work as it expects only one pid at a >> time. > Interesting…I wouldn’t expect the function calls to interact that > way TBH, my reaction to that was that the OP doesn't understand SQL semantics. As you previously said, simply removing the LIMIT clause should work fine. (The ORDER BY looks kinda pointless, too, unless there are operational constraints we weren't told about.) There is a question of exactly what "$a'${TIMEOUT_MINS}'$a" is supposed to mean, but that's independent of the LIMIT issue. regards, tom lane