| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Francisco Olarte <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ajay Pratap <ajaypratap(at)drishti-soft(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL ping/pong to client |
| Date: | 2019-04-17 17:04:20 |
| Message-ID: | 4113.1555520660@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Francisco Olarte <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:49 PM Ajay Pratap <ajaypratap(at)drishti-soft(dot)com> wrote:
>> Correction: I meant when my java application dies postgres should break all the connections that were associated with that peer.
> And how is the server supposed to detect that without keepalives? TCP
> is dessigned to survice for extended period of times without traffic,
> I used that a lot in the dial up times.
> And what makes you think keepalives are impactful and unrealistic? I
> use them a lot, they do not impact my workloads measurably.
If we tried to do something about that in the server code proper,
we'd basically be reinventing TCP keepalives --- probably badly.
And we couldn't do it at all without a protocol version break,
because the client-side code would also need to know about it.
Just use the keepalive facility.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2019-04-17 17:05:08 | Re: Move vs. copy table between databases that share a tablespace? |
| Previous Message | Francisco Olarte | 2019-04-17 16:41:57 | Re: PostgreSQL ping/pong to client |