On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 09:50:38AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 08:34:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The question is whether doing either one is really a material
> >> improvement, seeing that neither is going to provoke an abort
> >> until/unless the backend actually tries to write something to the client.
>
> > Is there a server equivalent to PQstatus? If there were one, couldn't
> > the server periodically ping the client?
>
> No, and do you really want the server stopping its processing of the
> query just to go see if the client is still alive? This would slow
> things down and introduce a whole new failure mode, ie, client doesn't
> answer ping fast enough so its session gets aborted.
I guess it depends on how things are setup. Something like the following
probably wouldn't pose a tremendous amount of overhead...
set alarm 10 seconds;
bool ping_sent;
on alarm:
if ping_sent then
call to see if a ping reply is waiting for us (would this just
sit in the network buffer, or would we actually get interrupted)
if no ping then
if timeout exceeded then
abort backend;
endif
else
set ping_sent = false;
endif
else
ping_client();
set ping_set = true;
endif
Of course, the proof would be in doing some performance testing...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
