From: | Art Gramlich <art(dot)gramlich(at)healthtrio(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
Cc: | Toru SHIMOGAKI <shimogaki(dot)toru(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch to add a socketTimeout property. |
Date: | 2008-04-10 21:59:07 |
Message-ID: | 5B7662E7-FE50-40C5-B1F3-0D01EB08F6BF@healthtrio.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
They do. We usually have different connection pools for normal (short
running) and long queries. Since almost all are short running, this
has worked well for us. I actually haven't tried setting keepalive in
this situation. so I can't say much, but the vpn solutions we have
used have at times gotten into some pretty wierd states and sotimeouts
could stop our pools from going crazy.
Art Gramlich
Chief Application Architect
HealthTrio, LLC
art(dot)gramlich(at)healthtrio(dot)com
On Apr 10, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Kris Jurka wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Toru SHIMOGAKI wrote:
>
>>
>> Art Gramlich wrote:
>>> Several jdbc drivers have recently added a way to set the
>>> SOTimeout on the connections socket. For those of us accessing
>>> databases over a unreliable connections, this can be quite helpful.
>>
>> Good. Although I submitted setKeepAlive patch to solve network down
>> two month ago[1], it is not accepted so far. I think socket timeout
>> is reasonable solution and easy to use.
>>
>
> It seems like keepalives are a better solution to dead server
> detection. Don't timeouts just cause problems when you have a long
> running query?
>
> Kris Jurka
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Panagiotis Papadakos | 2008-04-10 22:52:43 | Problem with very big queries. |
Previous Message | Kris Jurka | 2008-04-10 18:31:26 | Re: Patch to add a socketTimeout property. |