From: | <adnandursun(at)asrinbilisim(dot)com(dot)tr> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
Date: | 2005-05-02 17:20:51 |
Message-ID: | web-96187855@mail3.doruk.net.tr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 2 May 2005 18:47:14 +0300 (EEST)
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>FWIW, I've been bitten by this problem twice with other
>applications.
>
>1. We had a DB2 database with clients running in other
>computers in the network. A faulty switch caused random
>network outages. If the connection timed out and the
>client was unable to send it's request to the server, the
>client would notice that the connection was down, and open
>a new one. But the server never noticed that the
>connection was dead. Eventually, the maximum number of
>connections was reached, and the administrator had to kill
>all the connections manually.
Are you pleased from this feature on DB2 ? I think you
will say no :-)
>2. We had a custom client-server application using TCP
>across a network. There was stateful firewall between the
>server and the clients that dropped the connection at
>night when there was no activity. After a couple of days,
>the server reached the maximum number of threads on the
>platform and stopped accepting new connections.
Yes, because your firewall drops only connectiona between
clients and firewall, not database.
>In case 1, the switch was fixed. If another switch fails,
>the same will happen again. In case 2, we added an
>application-level heartbeat that sends a dummy message
>from server to client every 10 minutes.
>
>TCP keep-alive with a small interval would have saved the
>day in both cases. Unfortunately the default interval must
>be >= 2 hours, according to RFC1122.
Yes..
>On most platforms, including Windows and Linux, the TCP
>keep-alive interval can't be set on a per-connection
>basis. The ideal solution would be to modify the operating
>system to support it.
How will we do this ?
>What we can do in PostgreSQL is to introduce an
>application-level heartbeat. A simple "Hello world"
>message sent from server to client that the client would
>ignore would do the trick.
This couldnt be not forgetten that a clients can have more
than one connection to database and one of them is lost..
Best Regards,
Adnan DURSUN
ASRIN Bilişim Hiz.Ltd.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-05-02 17:22:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-05-02 17:17:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2005-05-02 18:26:40 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2005-05-02 15:47:14 | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |