TCP keepalive support for libpq
in [PgSql]
|
From: Tom Lane on 15 Feb 2010 11:00 Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(a)timbira.com> writes: > Magnus Hagander escreveu: >> If we want to do this, I'd be inclined to say we sneak this into 9.0.. >> It's small enough ;) >> > I'm afraid Robert will say a big NO. ;) I'm not against your idea; so if > nobody objects go for it *now*. If Robert doesn't I will. This was submitted *way* past the appropriate deadline; and if it were so critical as all that, why'd we never hear any complaints before? If this were actually a low-risk patch I might think it was okay to try to shoehorn it in now; but IME nothing involving making new use of system-dependent APIs is ever low-risk. Look at Greg's current embarrassment over fsync, a syscall I'm sure he thought he knew all about. 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 15 Feb 2010 11:08 On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(a)timbira.com> writes: >> Magnus Hagander escreveu: >>> If we want to do this, I'd be inclined to say we sneak this into 9.0.. >>> It's small enough ;) >>> >> I'm afraid Robert will say a big NO. ;) I'm not against your idea; so if >> nobody objects go for it *now*. > > If Robert doesn't I will. This was submitted *way* past the appropriate > deadline; and if it were so critical as all that, why'd we never hear > any complaints before? Agreed. > If this were actually a low-risk patch I might think it was okay to try > to shoehorn it in now; but IME nothing involving making new use of > system-dependent APIs is ever low-risk. Look at Greg's current > embarrassment over fsync, a syscall I'm sure he thought he knew all > about. That's why I think we shouldn't change the default behavior, but exposing a new option that people can use or not as works for them seems OK. ....Robert -- 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: Magnus Hagander on 15 Feb 2010 11:12 2010/2/15 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com>: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(a)timbira.com> writes: >>> Magnus Hagander escreveu: >>>> If we want to do this, I'd be inclined to say we sneak this into 9.0.. >>>> It's small enough ;) >>>> >>> I'm afraid Robert will say a big NO. ;) I'm not against your idea; so if >>> nobody objects go for it *now*. >> >> If Robert doesn't I will. This was submitted *way* past the appropriate >> deadline; and if it were so critical as all that, why'd we never hear >> any complaints before? > > Agreed. > >> If this were actually a low-risk patch I might think it was okay to try >> to shoehorn it in now; but IME nothing involving making new use of >> system-dependent APIs is ever low-risk. Look at Greg's current >> embarrassment over fsync, a syscall I'm sure he thought he knew all >> about. > > That's why I think we shouldn't change the default behavior, but > exposing a new option that people can use or not as works for them > seems OK. Well, not changing the default will have us with a behaviour that's half-way between what we have now and what we have on the server side. That just seems ugly. Let's just punt the whole thing to 9.1 instead and do it properly there. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- 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 15 Feb 2010 11:15 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> If this were actually a low-risk patch I might think it was okay to try >> to shoehorn it in now; but IME nothing involving making new use of >> system-dependent APIs is ever low-risk. �Look at Greg's current >> embarrassment over fsync, a syscall I'm sure he thought he knew all >> about. > That's why I think we shouldn't change the default behavior, but > exposing a new option that people can use or not as works for them > seems OK. That's assuming they get as far as having a working libpq to try it with. I'm worried about the possibility of inducing compile or link failures. "It works in the backend" doesn't give me that much confidence about it working in libpq. I'm all for this as a 9.1 submission, but let's not commit to trying to debug it now. I would like a green buildfarm for awhile before we wrap alpha4, and this sort of untested "it can't hurt" patch is exactly what is likely to make things not green. 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 15 Feb 2010 11:18
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> If this were actually a low-risk patch I might think it was okay to try >>> to shoehorn it in now; but IME nothing involving making new use of >>> system-dependent APIs is ever low-risk. Look at Greg's current >>> embarrassment over fsync, a syscall I'm sure he thought he knew all >>> about. > >> That's why I think we shouldn't change the default behavior, but >> exposing a new option that people can use or not as works for them >> seems OK. > > That's assuming they get as far as having a working libpq to try it > with. I'm worried about the possibility of inducing compile or link > failures. "It works in the backend" doesn't give me that much confidence > about it working in libpq. > > I'm all for this as a 9.1 submission, but let's not commit to trying to > debug it now. I would like a green buildfarm for awhile before we wrap > alpha4, and this sort of untested "it can't hurt" patch is exactly what > is likely to make things not green. Mmm. OK, fair enough. ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |