From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: [NOVICE] Re: re : PHP and persistent connections |
Date: | 2000-11-27 17:09:00 |
Message-ID: | 11237.975344940@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-novice |
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> Which brings us back around to the point of why this is on Hackers:
> PostgreSQL currently has no clean method for dropping idle connections.
> Yes, some apps handle this themselves, but not all. A number of people
> seem to feel there is a need for this feature.
I'm still not following exactly what people think would happen if we did
have such a "feature". OK, the backend times out after some interval
of seeing no activity, and disconnects. How is the client going to
react to that, exactly, and why would it not conclude that something's
gone fatally wrong with the database?
Seems to me that you still end up having to fix the client, and that
in the last analysis this is a client issue, not something for the
backend to hack around.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mario Weilguni | 2000-11-27 17:09:52 | Question about Oracle compatibility |
Previous Message | Philip Hallstrom | 2000-11-27 16:57:23 | Re: Re: re : PHP and persistent connections |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2000-11-27 18:10:39 | Re: Re: [NOVICE] Re: re : PHP and persistent connections |
Previous Message | Philip Hallstrom | 2000-11-27 16:57:23 | Re: Re: re : PHP and persistent connections |