| From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Robert Haas' <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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>, "Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Timeout parameters |
| Date: | 2019-03-19 04:13:40 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FBDE818@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com]
> I don't think so. I think it's just a weirdly-design parameter
> without a really compelling use case. Enforcing limits on the value
> of the parameter doesn't fix that. Most of the reviewers who have
> opined so far have been somewhere between cautious and negative about
> the value of that parameter, so I think we should just not add it. At
> least for now.
I don't think socket_timeout is so bad. I think Nagaura-san and I presented the use case, giving an answer to every question and concern. OTOH, it may be better to commit the tcp_user_timeout patch when Nagaura-san has refined the documentation, and then continue socket_timeout.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2019-03-19 04:25:44 | Re: What to name the current heap after pluggable storage / what to rename? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-03-19 03:49:29 | Re: Add exclusive backup deprecation notes to documentation |