| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(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: | 2010-02-15 16:08:23 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f071002150808vbf53a58y290bc3ce6cfb21ae@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> writes:
>> Magnus Hagander escreveu:
>>> If we want to do this, I'd be inclined to say we sneak this into 9.0..
>>> It's small enough ;)
>>>
>> I'm afraid Robert will say a big NO. ;) I'm not against your idea; so if
>> nobody objects go for it *now*.
>
> If Robert doesn't I will. This was submitted *way* past the appropriate
> deadline; and if it were so critical as all that, why'd we never hear
> any complaints before?
Agreed.
> If this were actually a low-risk patch I might think it was okay to try
> to shoehorn it in now; but IME nothing involving making new use of
> system-dependent APIs is ever low-risk. Look at Greg's current
> embarrassment over fsync, a syscall I'm sure he thought he knew all
> about.
That's why I think we shouldn't change the default behavior, but
exposing a new option that people can use or not as works for them
seems OK.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-02-15 16:12:14 | Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-15 16:03:39 | Re: plperl message style on newly added messages |