From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jelte Fennema <Jelte.Fennema@microsoft.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>,
        Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>,
        "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: PQcancel does not use tcp_user_timeout,
 connect_timeout and keepalive settings
In-reply-to: 
 <AM5PR83MB017876B0409F0F6773A2174CF7529@AM5PR83MB0178.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <AM5PR83MB017870DE81FC84D5E21E9D1EF7AA9@AM5PR83MB0178.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
 <CALNJ-vSbOyVm9nk3y1UwA3e+M8atwJtTg_3ugRfC5W+TyAbMZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <AM5PR83MB01781C8E94AEC8073B646872F7B09@AM5PR83MB0178.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
 <AM5PR83MB0178586E6B079DF8E7F0D855F7B09@AM5PR83MB0178.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
 <b79defeb-e938-2840-8adf-fa0af08e2c2b@oss.nttdata.com>
 <1473763.1636578406@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <HE1PR83MB0186173FC957C2554D0A31B6F7939@HE1PR83MB0186.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
 <AM5PR83MB0178DCFFC1BE77C4C390DA89F7439@AM5PR83MB0178.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
 <20220105184225.5xfekapzg5o3uq7a@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <794237.1641408889@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <AM5PR83MB01782D9A7D607B0419B3CB47F74C9@AM5PR83MB0178.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
 <2912315.1641943641@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2918809.1641947968@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <2937814.1641960929@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <AM5PR83MB017876B0409F0F6773A2174CF7529@AM5PR83MB0178.EURPRD83.prod.outlook.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Jelte Fennema <Jelte.Fennema@microsoft.com>
	message dated "Wed, 12 Jan 2022 16:11:26 +0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <144977.1642451980.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:39:40 -0500
Message-ID: <144978.1642451980@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/144978.1642451980%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Jelte Fennema <Jelte.Fennema@microsoft.com> writes:
> Thanks for all the cleanup and adding of windows support. To me it now l=
ooks good to merge.

I was about to commit this when I started to wonder if it actually does
anything useful.  In particular, I read in the Linux tcp(7) man page

       TCP_USER_TIMEOUT (since Linux 2.6.37)
              ...
              This option can be set during any state of a TCP connection,=
 but
              is effective only during the synchronized states of a connec=
tion
              (ESTABLISHED, FIN-WAIT-1, FIN-WAIT-2, CLOSE-WAIT,  CLOSING, =
 and
              LAST-ACK).

ISTM that the case we care about is where the server fails to respond
to the TCP connection request.  If it does so, it seems pretty unlikely
that it wouldn't then eat the small amount of data we're going to send.

While the keepalive options aren't so explicitly documented, I'd bet that
they too don't have any effect until the connection is known established.

So I'm unconvinced that setting these values really has much effect
to make PQcancel more robust (or more accurately, make it fail faster).
I would like to know what scenarios you tested to convince you that
this is worth doing.

			regards, tom lane