Re: Beating Oracle
От | Jan Wieck |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Beating Oracle |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200203012024.g21KODS09944@saturn.janwieck.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Beating Oracle (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih@kpnQwest.no>) |
Список | pgsql-interfaces |
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote: > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > > > In an RFC-compliant stack, the outage interval required before KEEPALIVE > > will kill the connection is of the order of hours. RFC 1122 specifies > > that the minimum interval before the first probe is even sent is 2 hours > > (since last activity on connection), and that a single failed probe is > > not sufficient reason to drop the connection. > > Ah, yes, I see that now. On NetBSD, it's four hours until the first > keepalive, then eight missed ones at 150 second intervals (totalling > 20 minutes) are required before the connection is considered dead. > > > RFC 2525 does note that excessively short keepalive timeout is a common > > form of TCP-stack bug. > > So, Bruce might still be bothered with something like that, and/or > (for all he's given us of details) he might actually be talking about > a situation where Oracle will wait through severely prolonged outages > where PostgreSQL won't. The question is "what exactly is the network glitch"? Firewalls doing NAT frequently cleanup a little too much, namely connections that just have been idle for some time. Maybe Oracle has it's private li'l keepalive ping to avoid that? Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com # _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
В списке pgsql-interfaces по дате отправления: