| From: | "Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura(dot)ryohei(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <AYahorau(at)ibagroup(dot)eu>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu" <MikalaiKeida(at)ibagroup(dot)eu> |
| Subject: | RE: Timeout parameters |
| Date: | 2018-10-25 04:49:25 |
| Message-ID: | EDA4195584F5064680D8130B1CA91C45367A73@G01JPEXMBYT04 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Andrei,
Thank you for response.
> TCP_USER_TIMEOUT option helps to overcome this problem and I agree with
> you that it needs to be supported within PostgreSQL.
I'm glad to your agreement.
> Nevertheless, it is necessary to take into account that the option
> TCP_USER_TIMEOUT is supported by Linux kernel starting since 2.6.37. In
> a lower kernel version these changes will not take affect.
Does it mean how do we support Linux OS whose kernel version is less than 2.6.37?
> I am not sure that suggested by you “socket_timeout” option should be
> implemented.
> As a workaround I suggest using asynchronous command processing
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/libpq-async.html
There are many applications implemented with synchronous API
(e.g. PQexec()), so "socket_timeout" is useful I think.
Best regards,
---------------------
Ryohei Nagaura
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | MyungKyu LIM | 2018-10-25 06:00:55 | Re: pg_stat_replication vs StandbyReplyMessage |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-10-25 04:19:02 | Re: A small tweak to some comments for PartitionKeyData |