| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Toru SHIMOGAKI <shimogaki(dot)toru(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: setKeepAlive |
| Date: | 2008-02-09 23:01:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1700.1202598102@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> writes:
> People seem to like to put stateful firewalls with low connection
> activity timeouts between their DB server and client. We get regular
> traffic on the list from people who see connections get reset on their
> first use after a long idle period. Presumably TCP keepalive would help
> in some of these cases.
There's certainly a use-case there, but we already provide TCP keepalive
functionality on the server side, which should be good enough to hold
open a NAT connection. It's not clear to me why we need keepalive
probes coming from the client side too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-02-09 23:18:23 | Re: proposal: setKeepAlive |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2008-02-09 22:45:27 | Re: proposal: setKeepAlive |