Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Mar 19, 2026. It is now read-only.
This repository was archived by the owner on Mar 19, 2026. It is now read-only.

should deadlines apply to streaming rpcs? #482

Description

@callmehiphop

I'm not sure if this is intended or not (it very well might be) but when a deadline is set for a streaming rpc the stream shuts down with a Deadline Exceeded error regardless of whether or not a connection is made once the deadline is hit.

I think this might be leading to strange behavior where the deadline must be increased by a great margin in order to allow the stream to stay open for longer. However this can be a problem in the event of an actual timeout, potentially causing client code to hang longer than necessary.

I think this is a gax issue because it applies default deadlines for streaming rpcs with no way to opt out, however this might also be a grpc issue? I'm not really sure, but I figured I'd start here!

Activity

  1. added
    priority: p1Important issue which blocks shipping the next release. Will be fixed prior to next release.
    on Nov 10, 2018
  2. vchudnov-g commented on Nov 10, 2018

    @vchudnov-g

    @alexander-fenster Any updates?

  3. alexander-fenster commented on Nov 12, 2018

    @alexander-fenster
    Contributor

    @callmehiphop This was lost in the list of issues for a long time :)

    For proper triaging: do you have any ongoing problems with the deadlines being applied to streaming methods in any of the libraries you support?

  4. callmehiphop commented on Nov 15, 2018

    @callmehiphop
    ContributorAuthor

    @alexander-fenster currently no, however we could definitely simplify code in the PubSub client if this were behaving as expected.

  5. added
    priority: p2Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release.
    and removed
    🚨This issue needs some love.
    priority: p1Important issue which blocks shipping the next release. Will be fixed prior to next release.
    on Nov 16, 2018
  6. added
    type: feature request‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.
    and removed
    🚨This issue needs some love.
    priority: p2Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release.
    type: questionRequest for information or clarification. Not an issue.
    on Dec 7, 2018
  7. alexander-fenster commented on Jul 21, 2022

    @alexander-fenster
    Contributor

    Closing for now, please reopen if this functionality is needed by someone.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Labels

type: feature request‘Nice-to-have’ improvement, new feature or different behavior or design.

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions