Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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...
Well, basically what I don't like about Magnus' proposal is that setting
one of the two values changes the default that will be used for the
other one. (Or, if it does not change the default, the extra code is
useless anyway.) If we just always go through the WSAIoctl() path then
we can clearly document "the default for this on Windows is so-and-so".
How is the documentation going to explain the behavior of the proposed
code?
regards, tom lane
