Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq

Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> I think it's going to be an uphill battle convincing TCP that we know
> better than the TCP spec about how aggressive it should be about
> throwing errors and killing connections. Once we have TCP keepalives
> set low enough -- assuming the OS will allow it to be set much lower
> -- we'll find that other timeouts are longer than we expect too. TCP
> Keepalives won't come into it at all if there is any unacked data
> pending -- TCP *will* detect that case but it might take longer than
> you want too and you won't be able to lower it.

So it's a good thing that walreceiver never has to send anything after
the initial handshake ...

			regards, tom lane