Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tollef(dot)fog(dot)heen(at)collabora(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq
Date: 2010-02-11 17:08:03
Message-ID: 87pr4bya30.fsf@qurzaw.linpro.no
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

]] Robert Haas

| I've sometimes wondered why keepalives aren't the default for all TCP
| connections. They seem like they're usually a Good Thing (TM), but I
| wonder if we can think of any situations where someone might not want
| them?

As somebody mentioned somewhere else (I think): If you pay per byte
transmitted, be it 3G/GPRS. Or if you're on a very, very high-latency
link or have no bandwidth. Like, a rocket to Mars or maybe the moon.
While I think they are valid use-cases, requiring people to change the
defaults if that kind of thing sounds like a sensible solution to me.

--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2010-02-11 17:08:30 Re: Confusion over Python drivers
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-02-11 17:07:46 Re: a common place for pl/perlu modules