Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Keep-alive?

From: Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>,pgadmin-support(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Keep-alive?
Date: 2003-10-11 16:45:34
Message-ID: 3F8833AE.2050108@wildenhain.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-support
Hi,

Dave Page wrote:
>  
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de] 
>>Sent: 10 October 2003 13:53
>>To: Dave Page
>>Cc: pgadmin-support(at)postgresql(dot)org
>>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-support] Keep-alive?
>>
>>
>>Each database has its own connection to the server (just 
>>checked with netstat), and thus is individually target of a 
>>firewall surveillance/ forced tcp disconnect.
> 
> 
> Good point, same problem as the icmp keep alives.
> 
To avoid to much concentration of that not very common
matter - a firewall not in control of the DBA, but
configured the way do enforce keep alive -
this should be handled by the DBA itself.
A solution would be to just establish a connection
forwarding via SSH and a small shell script running
in the control channel (shell) outputting
some letters in a loop with delay of some seconds.

The only thing which would be nice to have at
least on windows, would be support for
socks protocol.
tsocks works good on linux, but I have yet to
see any equivalent of this for win32.

Just my 0.0002c ;)

Regards
Tino



In response to

pgadmin-support by date

Next:From: Zvone ZagarDate: 2003-10-11 17:41:43
Subject: pgsql - failed
Previous:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2003-10-10 16:18:57
Subject: Re: [BUGS] bug reporting

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group