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

Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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?


> 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.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-02-15 16:12:14
Subject: Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-02-15 16:03:39
Subject: Re: plperl message style on newly added messages

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group