On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is there plan to implement such external functions before 9.2 release?
>>> If not, keepalive protocol seems to be almost useless because there is
>>> no use of it for a user and the increase in the number of packets might
>>> increase the replication performance overhead slightly. No?
>
>> Good point. IMHO, this shouldn't really have been committed like
>> this, but since it was, we had better fix it, either by reverting the
>> change or forcing an initdb to expose the functionality.
>
> I see no reason to rip the code out if we have plans to make use of it
> in the near future. I am also not for going back into development mode
> on 9.2, which is what adding new functions now would amount to. What's
> wrong with leaving well enough alone? It's not like there is no
> unfinished work anywhere else in Postgres ...
So, extra TCP overhead for no user-visible benefit doesn't bother you?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
