Hello, Tom.

You wrote:

TL> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What's your idea of "affecting the fewest people"?  There is no previous
>>> history to be backward-compatible with, because we never supported
>>> keepalive on Windows before.

>> Well, starting in 9.0, keepalives in libpq will default to 'on':

TL> Yes, which is already a change in behavior.  I don't understand why you
TL> are worrying about "backwards compatibility" to parameter values that
TL> weren't in use before.  I think self-consistency of the new version is
TL> far more important than that.

Absolutely agree.

>> even if we use Windows defaults, those defaults might be different for
>> different Windows versions.

TL> I'm not sure if that's an issue or not, but if it is, that seems to me
TL> to argue for #2 not #1.

TL>                         regards, tom lane



-- 
With best wishes,
 Pavel                          mailto:pavel(at)gf(dot)microolap(dot)com

In response to

• Re: Keepalives win32 at 2010-06-30 15:21:59 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Guillaume Lelarge	Date: 2010-07-01 09:30:57
	Subject: Re: Cannot cancel the change of a tablespace
Previous:	From: Fujii Masao	Date: 2010-07-01 04:09:37
	Subject: Re: Streaming Replication: Checkpoint_segment and wal_keep_segments on standby