Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > I still like #1 because it affects the fewest people, and that option
> > uses the RFC defaults only for unset values when others are set.
>
> 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':
Controls whether client-side TCP keepalives are used. The defaultvalue is 1, meaning on, but you can change this to 0,
meaningoff,if keepalives are not wanted. This parameter is ignored forconnections made via a Unix-domain socket.
My definition is whether we should affect keepalive behavior for the 99%
of people who do not change the libpq defaults, meaning the other
keepalive settings. #2 would cause these people to use
non-registry-controlled keepalive behavior by using RFC defaults, and
even if we use Windows defaults, those defaults might be different for
different Windows versions.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
