RE: Timeout parameters

From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Michael Paquier' <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Fabien COELHO' <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, 'Kyotaro HORIGUCHI' <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, "AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Timeout parameters
Date: 2019-04-08 00:09:10
Message-ID: 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FBF29A9@G01JPEXMBYT05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz]
> I have just committed the GUC and libpq portion for TCP_USER_TIMEOUT after
> a last lookup, and I have cleaned up a couple of places.

Thank you for further cleanup and committing.

> For the socket_timeout stuff, its way of solving the problem it thinks is
> solves does not seem right to me, and this thread has not reached a consensus
> anyway, so I have discarded the issue.
>
> I am marking the CF entry as committed. In the future, it would be better
> to not propose multiple concepts on the same thread, and if the
> socket_timeout business is resubmitted, I would suggest a completely new
> CF entry, and a new thread.

Understood. Looking back the review process, it seems that tcp_user_timeout and socket_timeout should have been handled in separate threads.

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2019-04-08 00:15:46 Re: clean up pg_checksums.sgml
Previous Message Haribabu Kommi 2019-04-08 00:04:00 Re: Transaction commits VS Transaction commits (with parallel) VS query mean time