| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: beta3 & the open items list |
| Date: | 2010-06-20 05:18:16 |
| Message-ID: | 17462.1277011096@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> On Jun 19, 2010, at 21:13 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is nonsense --- the slave's kernel *will* eventually notice that
>> the TCP connection is dead, and tell walreceiver so. I don't doubt
>> that the standard TCP timeout is longer than people want to wait for
>> that, but claiming that it will never happen is simply wrong.
> No, Robert is correct AFAIK. If you're *waiting* for data, TCP
> generates no traffic (expect with keepalive enabled).
Mph. I was thinking that keepalive was on by default with a very long
interval, but I see this isn't so. However, if we enable keepalive,
then it's irrelevant to the point anyway. Nobody's produced any
evidence that keepalive is an unsuitable solution.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2010-06-20 09:41:15 | Re: beta3 & the open items list |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-06-20 03:50:50 | Re: extensible enum types |