RE: Timeout parameters

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От MikalaiKeida@ibagroup.eu
Тема RE: Timeout parameters
Дата
Msg-id OF4918EAD0.A1F2C472-ON432583BA.003102FD-432583BA.0032191B@iba.by
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на RE: Timeout parameters  ("Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura.ryohei@jp.fujitsu.com>)
Ответы RE: Timeout parameters
Список pgsql-hackers
Hello Ryohei-san,

I understand the main aim of your suggestion that a client application has to do a lot of work except making quires to the database. I agree with you that "client-side timeout" has to be integrated into the PostgreSQL server and libpq.
I'm with Fabien that "client-side timeout" seems unsafe. Also I agree with Fabien that quire can take much time to be processed by the PosgtreSQL server and it is a normal behavior. There is possible that performance of the PostgreSQL server machine can be low temporary or continuously, especially during upgrading procedure.
I think it is important to add some more information into the description of this parameter which informs end-users that this parameter has to be used very carefully because it can impact as on the client application as on the server.

> You mentioned about when a SQL query is heavy, but I want to talk about when OS hang.
> If OS hang occurs, the cost of cancel request processing is so high.


Such a situation looks to be covered by TCP_USER_TIMEOUT and keep_alive mechanisms. May be it is better to warn in documentation or prohibit in the source code to set
"client-side timeout" less than TCP_USER_TIMEOUT to avoid handling "possible" logical problems ahead to the network problems. Keep in mind that   "client-side timeout" can abort a connection which uses UNIX-domain sockets too.

What do you think about it?

Best regards,
Mikalai Keida

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: David Rowley
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?
Следующее
От: David Rowley
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pgbench MAX_ARGS