This is a discussion on Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 within the pgsql Hackers forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:31 AM > To: Hannu ...
| |||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:31 AM > To: Hannu Krosing > Cc: Heikki Linnakangas; Neil Conway; Oliver Jowett; > adnandursun@asrinbilisim.com.tr; Peter Eisentraut; Alvaro Herrera; > pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze date for 8.1 > > [...] > I am a tad worried about the possibility that if the client > does nothing for long enough, the TCP output buffer will fill > causing the backend to block at send(). A permanently blocked > backend is bad news from a performance point of view (it > degrades the sinval protocol for everyone else). So use MSG_DONTWAIT or O_NONBLOCK on the keepalive packets. That won't stop the buffer from getting filled up, but if you get an EAGAIN while sending a keepalive packet, you know the client is either dead or really busy. __ David B. Held Software Engineer/Array Services Group 200 14th Ave. East, Sartell, MN 56377 320.534.3637 320.253.7800 800.752.8129 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|