From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
---|---|
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: | 2010-06-20 10:46:12 |
Message-ID: | C63B6B84-16F9-4EA5-82E1-7C54EC38D31C@phlo.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 20, 2010, at 7:18 , Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, I agree. Just enabling keepalive should suffice for 9.0.
BTW, the postmaster already enables keepalive on incoming connections in StreamConnection() - presumably to prevent crashed clients from occupying a backend process forever. So there's even a clear precedent for doing so, and proof that it doesn't cause any harm.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-06-20 10:56:30 | Small FSM is too large |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2010-06-20 09:41:15 | Re: beta3 & the open items list |