Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com> writes:
>> Magnus Hagander escreveu:
>>> If we want to do this, I'd be inclined to say we sneak this into 9.0..
>>> It's small enough ;)
>>>
>> I'm afraid Robert will say a big NO. ;) I'm not against your idea; so if
>> nobody objects go for it *now*.
>
> If Robert doesn't I will.  This was submitted *way* past the appropriate
> deadline; and if it were so critical as all that, why'd we never hear
> any complaints before?

Agreed.

> If this were actually a low-risk patch I might think it was okay to try
> to shoehorn it in now; but IME nothing involving making new use of
> system-dependent APIs is ever low-risk.  Look at Greg's current
> embarrassment over fsync, a syscall I'm sure he thought he knew all
> about.

That's why I think we shouldn't change the default behavior, but
exposing a new option that people can use or not as works for them
seems OK.

...Robert