Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: adnandursun(at)asrinbilisim(dot)com(dot)tr, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
Date: 2005-05-02 04:25:33
Message-ID: 10546.1115007933@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Actually, i can't see what's the problem. :)

I think the issue is "how long does it take for the rollback to happen?"

While that isn't an unreasonable issue on its face, I think it really
boils down to this: the OP is complaining because he thinks the
connection-loss timeout mandated by the TCP RFCs is too long. Perhaps
the OP knows network engineering far better than the authors of those
RFCs, or perhaps not. I'm not convinced that Postgres ought to provide
a way to second-guess the TCP stack ... this looks to me like "I can't
convince the network software people to provide me an easy way to
override their decisions, so I'll beat up on the database people to
override 'em instead. Perhaps the database people don't know the issues
and can be browbeaten more easily."

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-05-02 04:41:33 Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-05-02 04:14:43 Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-05-02 04:41:33 Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-05-02 04:14:43 Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1