From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI [mailto:horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp] > If so, in turn the socket_timeout doesn't work as expected? I > understand that what is proposed here is to disconnect after that > time of waiting for *the first tuple* of a query, regardless of > it is a long query or network failure. On of the problems raised > here is the socket_timetout patch doesn't work that way?
No, the proposal is to set the timeout for every socket read/write like PgJDBC. It is not restricted to an SQL command execution; it applies to any communication with the server that could block the client. > I can't imagine that in the cases where other than applications > cannot be rebuild for some reasons. (E.g. the source code has > been lost or the source code no longer be built on modern > environment..) > > If an application is designed to have such a requirement, mustn't > it have implemented that by itself by any means? For example, an > application on JDBC can be designed to kill a querying thread > that takes longer than threshold. Any paid or free applications whose source code is closed. Also, ordinary users don't want to modify psql and pgAdmin source code by themselves, do they? > Doesn't TCP_KEEPALIVE work that way? > > statement_timeout works on a live connection, TCP_USER_TIMEOUT > works for an already failed network but if the network fails > after a backend already sent the ack for a query request, it > doesn't work. TCP_KEEPALIVE would work for the case where any > packet doesn't reach each other for a certain time. Is there any > other situations to save? For example, OS issues such as abnormally (buggy) slow process scheduling or paging/swapping that prevent control from being passed to postgres. Or, abnormally long waits on lwlocks in postgres. statement_timeout doesn't take effect while waiting on a lwlock. I have experienced both. And, any other issues in the server that we haven't experienced and not predictable. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
