RE: Timeout parameters

From: "Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: "AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>
Subject: RE: Timeout parameters
Date: 2018-10-25 04:49:25
Message-ID: EDA4195584F5064680D8130B1CA91C45367A73@G01JPEXMBYT04
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Andrei,

Thank you for response.

> TCP_USER_TIMEOUT option helps to overcome this problem and I agree with
> you that it needs to be supported within PostgreSQL.
I'm glad to your agreement.

> Nevertheless, it is necessary to take into account that the option
> TCP_USER_TIMEOUT is supported by Linux kernel starting since 2.6.37. In
> a lower kernel version these changes will not take affect.
Does it mean how do we support Linux OS whose kernel version is less than 2.6.37?

> I am not sure that suggested by you “socket_timeout” option should be
> implemented.
> As a workaround I suggest using asynchronous command processing
There are many applications implemented with synchronous API
(e.g. PQexec()), so "socket_timeout" is useful I think.

Best regards,
Ryohei Nagaura

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message MyungKyu LIM 2018-10-25 06:00:55 Re: pg_stat_replication vs StandbyReplyMessage
Previous Message Amit Langote 2018-10-25 04:19:02 Re: A small tweak to some comments for PartitionKeyData