Florian Pflug wrote: > On Jun 20, 2010, at 7:18 , Tom Lane wrote: >> I was thinking that keepalive was on by default with a very >> long interval, but I see this isn't so. However, if we enable >> keepalive, then it's irrelevant to the point anyway. Nobody's >> produced any evidence that keepalive is an unsuitable solution. > > Yeah, I agree. Just enabling keepalive should suffice for 9.0. +1, with configurable timeout; otherwise people will often feel they need to kill the receiver process to get it to attempt reconnect or archive search, anyway. Two hours is a long time to block replication based on a broken connection before attempting to move on. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
