RE: Timeout parameters

From: "Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, "MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, "AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Timeout parameters
Date: 2019-03-26 05:34:32
Message-ID: EDA4195584F5064680D8130B1CA91C4540E0D3@G01JPEXMBYT04
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi, kirk-san.

> From: Jamison, Kirk
> Ok. So I'd only take a look at TCP_USER_TIMEOUT parameter for now (this
> CommitFest), and maybe we could resume the discussion on socket_timeout
> in the future.
Yes, please.

> Your patch applies, however in TCP_backend_v10 patch, your documentation
> is missing a closing tag </varlistentry> so it could not be tested.
> When that's fixed, it passes the make check.
Oops! Fixed.

> what's the reason to emphasize Windows not supported in a separate
> paragraph?
I thought that it needs to be warned because there are some windows users.
But I came upon the idea that there are no need even it.
Thus the former doc you suggested seems better and I minor fixed doc to yours.

> (Note: I haven't checked which Linux versions are supported, I got it
> from your previous patch version.)
FYI, [1]

Best regards,
Ryohei Nagaura

Attachment Content-Type Size
socket_timeout_v9.patch application/octet-stream 5.2 KB
TCP_backend_v11.patch application/octet-stream 5.4 KB
TCP_interface_v11.patch application/octet-stream 4.5 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2019-03-26 05:40:22 Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2019-03-26 04:19:25 Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue