Tom Lane wrote:
> Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the "cluster liveness machinery" to
> notify the database server's kernel that connections to A are now dead?
> I find it really unconvincing to suppose that the above problem should
> be solved at the database level.
Actually, if you were to implement this as you suggest, you either put
full-blown group communication in the kernel (ow, no thanks!) or you
implement a system where the DB server's kernel has a heartbeat to each
peer (e.g. A) and if that heartbeat stops, it kills the corresponding
connections.
But that functionality already exists: it is SO_KEEPALIVE.
(I think we're arguing in circles here..)
-O
