[HACKERS] SO_KEEPALIVE

2005-05-22 Thread Gaetano Mendola
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I understood that noone will add that option to pglib, is it correct ? Regards Gaetano Mendola -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCkOh27Up

Re: [HACKERS] SO_KEEPALIVE

2005-05-18 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Oliver Jowett wrote: > If you're unlucky, the server could go down while you're blocked waiting > for a query response.. > That is exactly what happens to us, and you have to be not so unlucky for that happen if the engine have ~100 query at time. Regards Gaetano Mendola

Re: [HACKERS] SO_KEEPALIVE

2005-05-18 Thread Gaetano Mendola
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Oliver Jowett wrote: If you're unlucky, the server could go down while you're blocked waiting for a query response.. That is exactly what happens to us, and you have to be not so unlucky for that happen if the engine have ~100 que

Re: [HACKERS] SO_KEEPALIVE

2005-05-18 Thread Oliver Jowett
Tom Lane wrote: > On the other hand, it seems to me a client-side SO_KEEPALIVE would only > be interesting for completely passive clients (perhaps one that sits > waiting for NOTIFY messages?) A normal client will try to issue some > kind of database command once in awhile, and as soon as that ha

Re: [HACKERS] SO_KEEPALIVE

2005-05-16 Thread Dennis Bjorklund
On Mon, 16 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote: > On the other hand, it seems to me a client-side SO_KEEPALIVE would only > be interesting for completely passive clients (perhaps one that sits > waiting for NOTIFY messages?) A normal client will try to issue some > kind of database command once in awhile A

Re: [HACKERS] SO_KEEPALIVE

2005-05-16 Thread Tom Lane
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On E, 2005-05-16 at 19:22 +0200, Dennis Bjorklund wrote: >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] SO_KEEPALIVE

2005-05-16 Thread Hannu Krosing
On E, 2005-05-16 at 19:22 +0200, Dennis Bjorklund wrote: > 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 s

Re: [HACKERS] SO_KEEPALIVE

2005-05-16 Thread Dennis Bjorklund
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 cl

Re: [HACKERS] SO_KEEPALIVE

2005-05-16 Thread Tom Lane
Dennis Bjorklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.

[HACKERS] SO_KEEPALIVE

2005-05-16 Thread Dennis Bjorklund
How come we don't set SO_KEEPALIVE in libpq? Is there any reason why we wouldn't want it on? -- /Dennis Björklund ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings