From: Nagaura, Ryohei [mailto:nagaura.ryohei@jp.fujitsu.com]
> BTW, tcp_user_timeout parameter of servers and clients have same name in
> my current implementation.
> I think it would be better different name rather than same name.
> I'll name them as the following a) or b):
> a) server_tcp_user_timeout and client_tcp_user_timeout
> b) tcp_user_timeout and user_timeout
> b) is the same as the naming convention of keepalive, but it is not
> user-friendly.
> Do you come up with better name?
> Or opinion?
a) is not always accurate, because libpq is also used in the server. For example, postgres_fdw and WAL receiver in
streamingreplication.
I'm OK with either the current naming or b). Frankly, I felt a bit strange when I first saw the keepalive parameters,
wonderingwhy the same names were not chosen.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
