On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> writes:
>> Magnus Hagander escreveu:
>>> If we want to do this, I'd be inclined to say we sneak this into 9.0..
>>> It's small enough ;)
>> I'm afraid Robert will say a big NO. ;) I'm not against your idea; so if
>> nobody objects go for it *now*.
> If Robert doesn't I will. This was submitted *way* past the appropriate
> deadline; and if it were so critical as all that, why'd we never hear
> any complaints before?
> If this were actually a low-risk patch I might think it was okay to try
> to shoehorn it in now; but IME nothing involving making new use of
> system-dependent APIs is ever low-risk. Look at Greg's current
> embarrassment over fsync, a syscall I'm sure he thought he knew all
That's why I think we shouldn't change the default behavior, but
exposing a new option that people can use or not as works for them
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-02-15 16:12:14|
|Subject: Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-15 16:03:39|
|Subject: Re: plperl message style on newly added messages |