| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tollef Fog Heen <tollef(dot)fog(dot)heen(at)collabora(dot)co(dot)uk>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq |
| Date: | 2010-06-24 14:40:59 |
| Message-ID: | 12955.1277390459@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I think it's going to be an uphill battle convincing TCP that we know
> better than the TCP spec about how aggressive it should be about
> throwing errors and killing connections. Once we have TCP keepalives
> set low enough -- assuming the OS will allow it to be set much lower
> -- we'll find that other timeouts are longer than we expect too. TCP
> Keepalives won't come into it at all if there is any unacked data
> pending -- TCP *will* detect that case but it might take longer than
> you want too and you won't be able to lower it.
So it's a good thing that walreceiver never has to send anything after
the initial handshake ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-24 14:45:45 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add TCP keepalive support to libpq. |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2010-06-24 14:40:41 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add TCP keepalive support to libpq. |