On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 22:39, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
