| From: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SO_KEEPALIVE |
| Date: | 2005-05-16 17:22:47 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0505161912520.7072-100000@zigo.dhs.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> > How come we don't set SO_KEEPALIVE in libpq?
> > Is there any reason why we wouldn't want it on?
>
> Is there any reason we *would* want it on? The server-side keepalive
> should be sufficient to get whatever useful impact it might have.
Wouldn't the client also want to know that the server is not there
anymore? I talked to Gaetano Mendola (I think, but you never know on irc
:-) and he had some clients that had been hanging around for 3 days after
the server had been down and later up again (stuck in recv).
Server-side keepalive is enough for the server to clean up when clients
disapears, but this do nothing to help clients detect that the server is
gone. So I don't see what server side keepalive has to do with it.
--
/Dennis Björklund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-05-16 17:23:46 | Re: pgFoundry |
| Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2005-05-16 16:50:25 | Re: pgFoundry |