[COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add TCP keepalive support to libpq.
in [PgSql]
|
From: Florian Pflug on 24 Jun 2010 11:08 On Jun 24, 2010, at 16:45 , Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Florian Pflug <fgp(a)phlo.org> wrote: >> On Jun 24, 2010, at 16:30 , Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndQuadrant.com> writes: >>>>> There isn't any need at at all for this. We can already add options on >>>>> the libpq connection line. >>>> >>>>> options = '-o tcp_keepalives_idle=X >>>>> tcp_keepalives_interval=Y >>>>> tcp_keepalives_count=Z' >>>> >>>> Huh? The above is 100% fanciful; there was no code in libpq or anywhere >>>> else that would have processed such a thing. >>> >>> You can do this: >>> >>> psql "host=127.0.0.1 options='-c tcp_keepalives_idle=1'" >> >> Hm, seems a bit error-prone though. The difference between the above >> >> psql "host=127.0.0.1 keepalives=1" >> >> isn't immediately obvious I'd say. >> >> Should we maybe rename the libpq-side parameters to tcp_client_keepalives, tcp_client_keepalives_idle, tcp_client_keepalives_count and tcp_client_keepalives_interval? Or do we expect people who fiddle with those parameters to understand the subtle difference? > > I think the existing names are fine - people should understand that > "options" means "server-side options" and that anything else is a > client-side option. However, if there's a strong consensus the other > way and someone feels like working up a patch, that's fine too. I'd volunteer to create the patch if people think renaming the libpq options is a good idea. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 24 Jun 2010 11:15 Florian Pflug <fgp(a)phlo.org> writes: > On Jun 24, 2010, at 16:45 , Robert Haas wrote: >> I think the existing names are fine - people should understand that >> "options" means "server-side options" and that anything else is a >> client-side option. However, if there's a strong consensus the other >> way and someone feels like working up a patch, that's fine too. > I'd volunteer to create the patch if people think renaming the libpq options is a good idea. I'm with Robert: the names are fine as-is. We've not had complaints about the libpq SSL parameters being confusingly like server-side SSL parameters, for instance. It might be a good idea to add a sentence to the documentation, though, just pointing out that these control client-side keepalive probes rather than server-side. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 24 Jun 2010 13:56 On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 10:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> It lets you set >> the TCP keepalive parameters on the server side, whereas what this >> patch does is let you set them on the client side. �Only setting them >> on the client side will allow the client to notice when the server has >> gone away. > > Thank you for explaining. Now I understand. > > It sort of begs the question: why need they be different? In most cases, they probably don't; in fact, I suspect most people don't bother adjusting these parameters at all. Essentially, they just control the amount of time that can pass before you decide that the other guy is dead. And if the client thinks it's right to declare the server dead after X minutes, it's probably reasonable for the server to declare the client dead after X minutes, too. On the other hand, the client and server may be under different administrative control. What the DBA wants the database to do to avoid running out of connection slots might not be the same as what the application writer wants to do to detect when the database has crashed. For that exact reason, it's actually slightly strange that we make these parameters PGC_USERSET on the server side - but not strange enough that I can get excited about changing it. If an application writer wants to make trouble for the DBA, he certainly has better ways to do it than this... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 24 Jun 2010 15:49 On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 11:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Florian Pflug <fgp(a)phlo.org> writes: >> > On Jun 24, 2010, at 16:45 , Robert Haas wrote: >> >> I think the existing names are fine - people should understand that >> >> "options" means "server-side options" and that anything else is a >> >> client-side option. �However, if there's a strong consensus the other >> >> way and someone feels like working up a patch, that's fine too. >> >> > I'd volunteer to create the patch if people think renaming the libpq options is a good idea. >> >> I'm with Robert: the names are fine as-is. �We've not had complaints >> about the libpq SSL parameters being confusingly like server-side SSL >> parameters, for instance. >> >> It might be a good idea to add a sentence to the documentation, though, >> just pointing out that these control client-side keepalive probes rather >> than server-side. > > Yes please. I was confused; I think others will be also. Do either of you have any thoughts about where would be the best place to add such a sentence? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 24 Jun 2010 23:50 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 11:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> It might be a good idea to add a sentence to the documentation, though, >>> just pointing out that these control client-side keepalive probes rather >>> than server-side. >> >> Yes please. I was confused; I think others will be also. > Do either of you have any thoughts about where would be the best place > to add such a sentence? In the hunk you added to libpq.sgml would be fine by me. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: ECPG FETCH readahead Next: [HACKERS] TOAST issue on custom index access method |