On 2022/02/17 19:35, kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com wrote:
Dear Horiguchi-san,
I think we just don't need to add the special timeout kind to the
core. postgres_fdw can use USER_TIMEOUT and it would be suffiction to
keep running health checking regardless of transaction state then fire
query cancel if disconnection happens. As I said in the previous main,
possible extra query cancel woud be safe.
Sounds reasonable to me.
I finally figured out that you mentioned about user-defined timeout system.
Firstly - before posting to hackers - I designed like that,
but I was afraid of an overhead that many FDW registers timeout
and call setitimer() many times. Is it too overcautious?
Isn't it a very special case where many FDWs use their own user timeouts? Could
you tell me the assumption that you're thinking, especially how many FDWs are
working?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
