| From: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, adnandursun(at)asrinbilisim(dot)com(dot)tr, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
| Date: | 2005-05-02 21:51:29 |
| Message-ID: | 4276A0E1.3060603@opencloud.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the "cluster liveness machinery" to
> notify the database server's kernel that connections to A are now dead?
> I find it really unconvincing to suppose that the above problem should
> be solved at the database level.
Actually, if you were to implement this as you suggest, you either put
full-blown group communication in the kernel (ow, no thanks!) or you
implement a system where the DB server's kernel has a heartbeat to each
peer (e.g. A) and if that heartbeat stops, it kills the corresponding
connections.
But that functionality already exists: it is SO_KEEPALIVE.
(I think we're arguing in circles here..)
-O
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Held | 2005-05-02 21:56:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Decision Process WAS: Increased company involvement |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2005-05-02 21:35:25 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-05-03 00:27:22 | Re: Added columns to pg_stat_activity |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2005-05-02 21:35:25 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |