Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> What's your idea of "affecting the fewest people"? There is no previous > >> history to be backward-compatible with, because we never supported > >> keepalive on Windows before. > > > Well, starting in 9.0, keepalives in libpq will default to 'on': > > Yes, which is already a change in behavior. I don't understand why you > are worrying about "backwards compatibility" to parameter values that > weren't in use before. I think self-consistency of the new version is > far more important than that.
I am worried about compatibility/consistency with other Windows processes. > > even if we use Windows defaults, those defaults might be different for > > different Windows versions. > > I'm not sure if that's an issue or not, but if it is, that seems to me > to argue for #2 not #1. I assume if someone modified the registry, they want it to be used for all applications that use keepalives on their system. Also, keep in mind that, unlike the backend, which has postgresql.conf, it is burdensome to set a libpq setting for all applications (without using pg_service.conf). -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
