| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tollef Fog Heen <tollef(dot)fog(dot)heen(at)collabora(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq |
| Date: | 2010-06-22 17:14:55 |
| Message-ID: | 3920.1277226895@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> By that argument, we need to be programming to bare metal on every disk
>> access. Does anyone want to argue that depending on vendor-specific
>> filesystem functionality is not a house of cards? (And unfortunately,
>> that's much too close to the truth ... but yet we're not going there.)
> I think you're making my argument for me. The file system API is far
> more portable than the behavior we're proposing to depend on here, and
> yet it's only arguably good enough to meet our needs.
Uh, it's not API that's at issue here, and as for "not portable" I think
you have failed to make that case. It is true that there are some old
platforms where keepalive isn't adjustable, but I doubt that anything
anyone is likely to be running mission-critical PG 9.0 on will lack it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Fowler | 2010-06-22 17:17:46 | Re: Adding XMLEXISTS to the grammar |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-22 17:08:53 | Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq |