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

Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tollef Fog Heen <tollef(dot)fog(dot)heen(at)collabora(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq
Date: 2010-02-11 16:16:36
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-02-11 16:17:38
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.
Previous:From: Alexey KlyukinDate: 2010-02-11 16:10:30
Subject: a common place for pl/perlu modules

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group