Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>, Tollef Fog Heen <tollef.fog.heen@collabora.co.uk>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-02-15T16:00:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.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. regards, tom lane