Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Tollef Fog Heen
> <tollef(dot)fog(dot)heen(at)collabora(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
>> ]] daveg
>> | I disagree. I have clients who have problems with leftover client connections
>> | due to server host failures. They do not write apps in C. For a non-default
>> | change to be effective we would need to have all the client drivers, eg JDBC,
>> | psycopg, DBD-DBI, and the apps like psql make changes to turn it on. Adding
>> | this option as a non-default will not really help.
>> FWIW, this is my case. My application uses psycopg, which provides no
>> way to get access to the underlying socket. Sure, I could hack my way
>> around this, but from the application writer's point of view, I have a
>> connection that I expect to stay around and be reliable. Whether that
>> connection is over a UNIX socket, a TCP socket or something else is
>> something I would rather not have to worry about; it feels very much
>> like an abstraction violation.
> 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
The only case I can think of are systems that send application layer
keepalive-like packets; I've worked on systems like this. The goal
wasn't to reinvent keepalives but to check-in every minute or two to
meet a different set of requirements, thus TCP keepalives weren't
needed. However, I don't think they would of caused any harm.
The more I think about this the more I think it's a pretty non-invasive
change to enable keepalives in libpq. I don't think this has any
negative impact on clients written while the default was disabled.
This is really a driver setting. There is no way to ensure libpq, DBI,
psycopg, JDBC, etc... all enable or disable keepalives by default. I
only bring this up because it appears there are complaints from
non-libpq clients. This patch wouldn't fix those cases.
every bit counts
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Oleg Bartunov||Date: 2010-02-11 16:37:56|
|Subject: Re: knngist patch support |
|Previous:||From: Peter Geoghegan||Date: 2010-02-11 16:33:35|
|Subject: Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq|