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

Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tollef Fog Heen" <tollef(dot)fog(dot)heen(at)collabora(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq
Date: 2010-02-11 16:27:43
Message-ID: 4B73DB9F020000250002F1AE@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
 
> I've sometimes wondered why keepalives aren't the default for all
> TCP connections.  They seem like they're usually a Good Thing
> (TM), but I wonder if we can think of any situations where someone
> might not want them?
 
I think it's insane not to use them at all, but there are valid use
cases for different timings.  Personally, I'd be happy to see a
default of sending them if a connection is idle for two minutes, but
those people who create 2000 lightly used connections to the
database might feel differently.
 
-Kevin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2010-02-11 16:33:35
Subject: Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-11 16:27:38
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove old-style VACUUM FULL (which was known for a little while

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