Horton

RE: Timeout parameters

Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: 'Michael Paquier' <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: "Jamison, Kirk" <k.jamison@jp.fujitsu.com>, "Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura.ryohei@jp.fujitsu.com>, 'Fabien COELHO' <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, 'Kyotaro HORIGUCHI' <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, "robertmhaas@gmail.com" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "MikalaiKeida@ibagroup.eu" <MikalaiKeida@ibagroup.eu>, "AYahorau@ibagroup.eu" <AYahorau@ibagroup.eu>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-04-08T00:09:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael@paquier.xyz]
> I have just committed the GUC and libpq portion for TCP_USER_TIMEOUT after
> a last lookup, and I have cleaned up a couple of places. 

Thank you for further cleanup and committing.


> For the socket_timeout stuff, its way of solving the problem it thinks is
> solves does not seem right to me, and this thread has not reached a consensus
> anyway, so I have discarded the issue.
> 
> I am marking the CF entry as committed.  In the future, it would be better
> to not propose multiple concepts on the same thread, and if the
> socket_timeout business is resubmitted, I would suggest a completely new
> CF entry, and a new thread.

Understood.  Looking back the review process, it seems that tcp_user_timeout and socket_timeout should have been handled in separate threads.


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

Commits

  1. Add support TCP user timeout in libpq and the backend server