Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>, 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: 2010-02-15T16:08:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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? 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