On Jun 20, 2010, at 7:18 , Tom Lane wrote: > Florian Pflug <f...@phlo.org> writes: >> On Jun 19, 2010, at 21:13 , Tom Lane wrote: >>> This is nonsense --- the slave's kernel *will* eventually notice that >>> the TCP connection is dead, and tell walreceiver so. I don't doubt >>> that the standard TCP timeout is longer than people want to wait for >>> that, but claiming that it will never happen is simply wrong. > >> No, Robert is correct AFAIK. If you're *waiting* for data, TCP >> generates no traffic (expect with keepalive enabled). > > Mph. I was thinking that keepalive was on by default with a very long > interval, but I see this isn't so. However, if we enable keepalive, > then it's irrelevant to the point anyway. Nobody's produced any > evidence that keepalive is an unsuitable solution.
Yeah, I agree. Just enabling keepalive should suffice for 9.0. BTW, the postmaster already enables keepalive on incoming connections in StreamConnection() - presumably to prevent crashed clients from occupying a backend process forever. So there's even a clear precedent for doing so, and proof that it doesn't cause any harm. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
