Re: Beating Oracle

Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > In an RFC-compliant stack, the outage interval required before KEEPALIVE
> > will kill the connection is of the order of hours. RFC 1122 specifies
> > that the minimum interval before the first probe is even sent is 2 hours
> > (since last activity on connection), and that a single failed probe is
> > not sufficient reason to drop the connection.
>
> Ah, yes, I see that now. On NetBSD, it's four hours until the first
> keepalive, then eight missed ones at 150 second intervals (totalling
> 20 minutes) are required before the connection is considered dead.
>
> > RFC 2525 does note that excessively short keepalive timeout is a common
> > form of TCP-stack bug.
>
> So, Bruce might still be bothered with something like that, and/or
> (for all he's given us of details) he might actually be talking about
> a situation where Oracle will wait through severely prolonged outages
> where PostgreSQL won't.

The question is "what exactly is the network glitch"?
Firewalls doing NAT frequently cleanup a little too much,
namely connections that just have been idle for some time.
Maybe Oracle has it's private li'l keepalive ping to avoid
that?

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com