On 07.01.2013 16:23, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> Since my other patch against pg_basebackup is now committed,
> this patch doesn't apply cleanly, patch rejects 2 hunks.
> The fixed up patch is attached.
Now that I look at this a high-level perspective, why are we only
worried about timeouts in the Copy-mode and when connecting? The initial
checkpoint could take a long time too, and if the server turns into a
black hole while the checkpoint is running, pg_basebackup will still
hang. Then again, a short timeout on that phase would be a bad idea,
because the checkpoint can indeed take a long time.
In streaming replication, the keep-alive messages carry additional
information, the timestamps and WAL locations, so a keepalive makes
sense at that level. But otherwise, aren't we just trying to reimplement
TCP keepalives? TCP keepalives are not perfect, but if we want to have
an application level timeout, it should be implemented in the FE/BE
I don't think we need to do anything specific to pg_basebackup. The user
can simply specify TCP keepalive settings in the connection string, like
with any libpq program.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2013-01-16 11:52:43|
|Subject: Re: Parallel query execution|
|Previous:||From: Kohei KaiGai||Date: 2013-01-16 09:43:23|
|Subject: Re: system administration functions with hardcoded
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: tsunezumi||Date: 2013-01-17 11:07:05|
|Subject: BUG #7814: Rotation of the log is not carried out. |
|Previous:||From: Abhijit Menon-Sen||Date: 2013-01-16 07:48:17|
|Subject: Re: Review of "pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog to use non-blocking
socket communication", was: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long
time to detect n/w breakdown|