Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Held
Subject Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
Date
Msg-id 49E94D0CFCD4DB43AFBA928DDD20C8F9026184FA@asg002.asg.local
Whole thread Raw
In response to Feature freeze date for 8.1  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1
List pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 12:39 PM
> To: Heikki Linnakangas
> Cc: Hannu Krosing; Neil Conway; Oliver Jowett;
> adnandursun@asrinbilisim.com.tr; Peter Eisentraut; Alvaro Herrera;
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Feature freeze date for 8.1
>
> [...]
> BTW, the upthread proposal of just dropping the message (which is what
> O_NONBLOCK would do) doesn't work; it will lose encryption sync on SSL
> connections.

How about an optional second connection to send keepalive pings?
It could be unencrypted and non-blocking.  If authentication is
needed on the ping port (which it doesn't seem like it would need
to be), it could be very simple, like this:

* client connects to main port
* server authenticates client normally
* server sends nonce token for keepalive authentication
* client connects to keepalive port
* client sends nonce token on keepalive port
* server associates matching keepalive connection with main    connection
* if server does not receive matching token within a small   timeout, no keepalive support enabled for this session

__
David B. Held
Software Engineer/Array Services Group
200 14th Ave. East,  Sartell, MN 56377
320.534.3637 320.253.7800 800.752.8129


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement
Next
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement