From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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: | 2010-06-19 19:49:30 |
Message-ID: | 4C1D1F4A.9060500@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/19/2010 09:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Right now, if the SR master reboots unexpectedly (say, power plug pull
>> and restart), the slave never notices. It just sits there forever
>> waiting for the next byte of data from the master to arrive (which it
>> never will).
>
> 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.
>
> I think that enabling slave-side TCP keepalives and control of the
> keepalive timeout parameters is probably sufficient for 9.0 here.
yeah I would agree - we do have tcp keepalive code in the backend for a
while now and adding that to libpq as well just seems like an easy
enough fix at this time in the release cycle.
Stefan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2010-06-19 20:14:29 | Re: extensible enum types |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2010-06-19 19:15:58 | Re: beta3 & the open items list |