Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Keepalives win32

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Keepalives win32
Date: 2010-06-29 13:35:18
Message-ID: AANLkTik57gSsOd3UE0hfQMxGhVHEIP0V7GQF4nxHYjeh@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 22:39, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I had in mind just legislating that the defaults are the RFC values,
>>> none of this "try to use the registry values in one case" business.
>
>> Um, if you look at that patch, it doesn't try to use the registry. It
>> falls back directly to the system default, ignoring the registry. The
>> only special case is where the user doesn't specify any of the
>> parameters.
>
> What I was trying to say is I think we could dispense with the
> setsockopt() code path, and just always use the WSAIoctl() path anytime
> keepalives are turned on.  I don't know what "system default values"
> you're speaking of, if they're not the registry entries; and I
> definitely don't see the point of consulting such values if they aren't
> user-settable.  We might as well just consult the RFCs and be done.

FWIW, I think I prefer Magnus's approach, but I'm not 100% sure I can
defend that preference...

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-06-29 14:21:54
Subject: Re: warning message in standby
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-06-29 13:33:20
Subject: Re: warning message in standby

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group