Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
От | Chuck McDevitt |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BB05A27C22288540A3A3E8F3749B45AB32C0CE@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Feature freeze date for 8.1 (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers- > owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:17 PM > To: andrew@supernews.com > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze date for 8.1 > > Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> writes: > > Then the client has to guarantee that it can stop whatever it was doing > > (which might have nothing to do with the database) every so often in > > order to send a message; this isn't feasible for most clients. > > It's certainly infeasible for libpq, which has no portable way to force > the calling app to give it control. > > regards, tom lane Why not just use SO_KEEPALIVE on the TCP socket? Then the TCP stack handles sending the keepalive messages, and there is no requirement that the client application give control to anything... It's all handled by the TCP stack.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: