Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1

From: "Chuck McDevitt" <cmcdevitt(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, andrew(at)supernews(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
Date: 2005-05-02 21:56:57
Message-ID: BB05A27C22288540A3A3E8F3749B45AB32C0CE@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
> owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:17 PM
> To: andrew(at)supernews(dot)com
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze date for 8.1
>
> Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com> writes:
> > Then the client has to guarantee that it can stop whatever it was
doing
> > (which might have nothing to do with the database) every so often in
> > order to send a message; this isn't feasible for most clients.
>
> It's certainly infeasible for libpq, which has no portable way to
force
> the calling app to give it control.
>
> regards, tom lane

Why not just use SO_KEEPALIVE on the TCP socket? Then the TCP stack
handles sending the keepalive messages, and there is no requirement that
the client application give control to anything... It's all handled by
the TCP stack.

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jochem van Dieten 2005-05-02 21:59:46 Re: ARCHIVE TABLES (was: possible TODO: read-only tables, select from indexes only.)
Previous Message Dave Held 2005-05-02 21:56:19 Re: [HACKERS] Decision Process WAS: Increased company involvement