| From: | "Toru SHIMOGAKI" <shimogaki(dot)toru(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kris Jurka" <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Art Gramlich" <art(dot)gramlich(at)healthtrio(dot)com>, "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: | 2008-04-12 00:27:07 |
| Message-ID: | e43b8e4f0804111727j535b62e3i4e356295b19b0023@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
2008/4/11, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>:
> I don't see a danger with exposing them as options as long as the pros and
> cons are clearly explained.
How about the following list to compare keepalive and socket timeout?
Please add other topics, if any.
keepalive socket timeout
------------------------------------------------------------------
Configurability No in Java Yes
(depend on OS setting)
Target All connections Each connection
Standard timer 2 hours Depend on users
setting
Influence All of applications Long running query
on a same OS using a same connection
Overhead Network for CPU for timer
keepalive proves
On the other hand, should we provide the both properties and users
chose either of them depend on their requirement?
--
Toru SHIMOGAKI <shimogaki(dot)toru(at)gmail(dot)com>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stanislav Mironov | 2008-04-13 13:29:53 | Two BLOBs (OID) in table? |
| Previous Message | Art Gramlich | 2008-04-11 17:02:53 | Re: Patch to add a socketTimeout property. |