From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Keepalives win32 |
Date: | 2010-06-29 13:35:18 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTik57gSsOd3UE0hfQMxGhVHEIP0V7GQF4nxHYjeh@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 22:39, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I had in mind just legislating that the defaults are the RFC values,
>>> none of this "try to use the registry values in one case" business.
>
>> Um, if you look at that patch, it doesn't try to use the registry. It
>> falls back directly to the system default, ignoring the registry. The
>> only special case is where the user doesn't specify any of the
>> parameters.
>
> What I was trying to say is I think we could dispense with the
> setsockopt() code path, and just always use the WSAIoctl() path anytime
> keepalives are turned on. I don't know what "system default values"
> you're speaking of, if they're not the registry entries; and I
> definitely don't see the point of consulting such values if they aren't
> user-settable. We might as well just consult the RFCs and be done.
FWIW, I think I prefer Magnus's approach, but I'm not 100% sure I can
defend that preference...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-06-29 14:21:54 | Re: warning message in standby |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-06-29 13:33:20 | Re: warning message in standby |