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

Re: Patch to add a socketTimeout property.

From: Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>
To: Art Gramlich <art(dot)gramlich(at)healthtrio(dot)com>
Cc: Toru SHIMOGAKI <shimogaki(dot)toru(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch to add a socketTimeout property.
Date: 2008-04-11 00:51:44
Message-ID: Pine.BSO.4.64.0804102041440.29336@leary.csoft.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Art Gramlich wrote:

> They do.  We usually have different connection pools for normal (short 
> running) and long queries.  Since almost all are short running, this has 
> worked well for us.  I actually haven't tried setting keepalive in this 
> situation. so I can't say much, but the vpn solutions we have used have at 
> times gotten into some pretty wierd states and sotimeouts could stop our 
> pools from going crazy.
>

I can see how keepalives are generally useful while sotimeouts are only 
useful in the specific situation where you can set a global limit on your 
query times.  On the other hand the sotimeout is configurable while the 
keepalive timeout isn't configurable (at least in Java).  I'm not 
particularly excited about either option, but I don't need them either.
  I don't see a danger with exposing them as options as long as the pros 
and cons are clearly explained.

Kris Jurka

In response to

Responses

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Art GramlichDate: 2008-04-11 17:02:53
Subject: Re: Patch to add a socketTimeout property.
Previous:From: John R PierceDate: 2008-04-10 23:52:15
Subject: Re: Problem with very big queries.

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