Re: beta3 & the open items list

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> On a quick read, I think I see a problem with this: if a parameter is
>> specified with a non-zero value and there is no OS support available
>> for that parameter, it's an error.  Presumably, for our purposes here,
>> we'd prefer to simply ignore any parameters for which OS support is
>> not available.  Given the nature of these parameters, one might argue
>> that's a more useful behavior in general.
>
>> Also, what about Windows?
>
> Well, of course that patch hasn't been reviewed yet ... but shouldn't we
> just be copying the existing server-side behavior, as to both points?

The existing server-side behavior is apparently to do elog(LOG) if a
given parameter is unsupported; I'm not sure what the equivalent for
libpq would be.

The current code does not seem to have any special cases for Windows
in this area, but that doesn't tell me whether it works or not.  It
looks like Windows must at least report success when you ask to turn
on keepalives, but whether it actually does anything, and whether
there extra parameters exist/work, I can't tell.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company