On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 22:39, Tom Lane <tgl@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
