Re: Keepalives win32

Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:27, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> It's hard to argue about this when most of us have no idea what these
> >> "system defaults" are, or whether they really are any different from the
> >> RFC values in the first place, or whether ordinary users know how to
> >> alter them or even find out their values. Please provide some
> >> background if you want intelligent comments.
>
> > The system defaults are whatever the user has configured at a machine
> > level (by editing the registry, by hand or by tool (including
> > policies)). I doubt many users have configured them by hand. There may
> > well be tools that do it for them.
>
> But you previously stated that this code was ignoring the registry
> values. So doesn't "system defaults" boil down to whatever Windows'
> wired-in defaults are?

For Magnus, #2 was to use the RFC defaults. The OS defaults might be
different for different versions of Windows. We could use the OS
defaults for _some_ version of Windows, but I am not sure that is an
improvement.

I still like #1 because it affects the fewest people, and that option
uses the RFC defaults only for unset values when others are set. I
still think we can do #3 (error), but we have to add a check in an
unrelated place to check for unset values, and the code is likely to be
ugly.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +