Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3EBA475843 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:54:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from bob.samurai.com (bob.samurai.com [205.207.28.75]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E83474E61 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:54:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from tokyo.samurai.com (DU150.N224.ResNet.QueensU.CA [130.15.224.150]) by bob.samurai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566811D8C; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:54:49 -0500 (EST) To: Francisco Reyes Cc: pgsql General List Subject: Re: Closing inactive connections OR user connections limits References: <20021120114805.C29739-100000@zoraida.natserv.net> From: Neil Conway In-Reply-To: <20021120114805.C29739-100000@zoraida.natserv.net> Date: 20 Nov 2002 12:54:46 -0500 Message-ID: <87ptt05dp5.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com> Lines: 22 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200211/855 X-Sequence-Number: 33276 Francisco Reyes writes: > Basically I came this morning to find a developer had a bug in a program > and used up all the connections. Could I have safely killed those > connections? kill(1) the backends in question. > In all the archives I read there seems to be a negative view on timeouts. > I think that after 4 hours of no activity, at least in my case, I > definitely want those connections dead. The superuser_reserved_connections feature we added for 7.3 should be sufficient for this -- if the maintenance tasks are done as the PostgreSQL superuser, there will be some reserved "slots" for them to connect to. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC