> One way to handle this is to have an option, set by
> the client, that
> causes the server to send some ignorable message
> after a given period
> of time idle while waiting for the client. If the
> idleness was due to
> network partitioning or similar failure, then this
> ensures that the
> connection breaks within a known time. This is safer
> than simply having
> the backend abort after a given idle period.
Another option is to have the client driver send some
ignorable message instead of the server. If the
server doesn't get a message every timeout
minutes/seconds + slop factor, then it drops the
connection. So libpq, JDBC, .net etc would all have
to have this implemented, but the changes to the
server would probably be simpler this way, wouldn't they?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
