From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
---|---|
To: | ivan babrou <ibobrik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Millisecond-precision connect_timeout for libpq |
Date: | 2013-07-09 08:20:45 |
Message-ID: | 51DBC7DD.5000806@bluegap.ch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/09/2013 09:15 AM, ivan babrou wrote:
> Database server lost network — boom, 2 seconds delay. What's the point then?
Oh, I see. Good point. It could still improve connection time during
normal operation, though.
None the less, I now agree with you: we recommend a pooler, which may be
capable of millisecond timeouts, but arguably is vastly more complex
than the proposed patch. And it even brings its own set of gotchas (lots
of connections). I guess I don't quite buy the complexity argument, yet.
Sure, gettimeofday() is subject to clock adjustments. But so is time().
And if you're setting timeouts that low, you probably know what you're
doing (or at least care about latency a lot). Or is gettimeofday() still
considerably slower on certain architectures or in certain scenarios?
Where's the complexity?
Regards
Markus Wanner
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-07-09 09:48:42 | Re: XLogInsert scaling, revisited |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2013-07-09 08:11:04 | Re: [PATCH] Add an ldapoption to disable chasing LDAP referrals |