On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 21:03, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 20:45, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I vote for #2. It's the least inconsistent --- we don't pay attention >>> to the registry for much of anything else, do we? > >> Directly, no? Indirectly, we do. For every other TCP parameter >> (because the registry controls what we'll get as the default when we >> "just use things") > > Not if we make the code use the RFC values as the defaults. I'm > envisioning the GUC assign hooks doing something like > > #ifdef WIN32 > if (newval == 0) > newval = RFC-specified-default; > #endif
Right. (I've only looked at the libpq side so far) Also, we could avoid caling it *at all* if neither one of those parameters is set. That'll take a bit more code (using the unix-codepath of setsockopt() to enable keepalives at all), but it shouldn't amount to many lines.. > so that the main GUC logic can still think that zero means "use the > default". We're just redefining where the default comes from. Yeah. > This would be a change from previous behavior, but so what? > Implementing any functionality at all here is a change from previous > behavior on Windows. I don't have the slightest problem with saying > "as of 9.0, set these values via postgresql.conf, not the registry". Works for me. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers