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.
>> 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,
In response to
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|