Re: Improve the granularity of PQsocketPoll's timeout parameter?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Tristan Partin <tristan(at)partin(dot)io>, Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Improve the granularity of PQsocketPoll's timeout parameter?
Date: 2024-06-13 15:25:37
Message-ID: 1800068.1718292337@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm unsure if the documentation matches the code?
> " connect_timeout #
> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/libpq-connect.html#LIBPQ-CONNECT-CONNECT-TIMEOUT>

> Maximum time to wait while connecting, in seconds (write as a decimal
> integer, e.g., 10). Zero, negative, or not specified means wait
> indefinitely. The minimum allowed timeout is 2 seconds, therefore a value
> of 1 is interpreted as 2. This timeout applies separately to each host name
> or IP address. For example, if you specify two hosts and connect_timeout is
> 5, each host will time out if no connection is made within 5 seconds, so
> the total time spent waiting for a connection might be up to 10 seconds.
> "
> The comments says that timeout = 0, means *Timeout is immediate (no
> blocking)*

> Does the word "indefinitely" mean infinite?
> If yes, connect_timeout = -1, mean infinite?

The sentence about "minimum allowed timeout is 2 seconds" has to go
away, but the rest of that seems fine.

But now that you mention it, we could drop the vestigial

>> if (timeout < 0)
>> timeout = 0;

as well, because the rest of the function only applies the timeout
when "timeout > 0". Otherwise end_time (nee finish_time) stays at -1.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2024-06-13 15:32:38 jsonpath: Missing Binary Execution Path?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-06-13 15:19:47 Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework