On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 17:46, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> "Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: >>> I also think we may want to suggest that for most environments, >>> people may want to change these settings to something more >>> aggressive, like a 30 to 120 second initial delay, with a 10 or 20 >>> second retry interval. The RFC defaults seem approximately right >>> for a TCP connection to a colony on the surface of the moon, where >>> besides the round trip latency of 2.5 seconds they might have to pay >>> by the byte. >> >> Well, the RFCs were definitely written at a time when bandwidth was a >> lot more expensive than it is today. >> >>> In other words, it is *so* conservative that I have >>> trouble seeing it ever causing a problem compared to not having >>> keepalive enabled, but it will eventually clean things up. >> >> Yes. This is a large part of the reason why I think it's okay for us to >> turn libpq keepalive on by default in 9.0 --- the default parameters for >> it are so conservative as to be unlikely to cause trouble. If Windows >> isn't using RFC-equivalent default parameters, that seems like a good >> reason to disregard the system settings and force use of the RFC values >> as defaults. > > Here's an updated version of the patch, which includes server side > functionality. I took out the code that tried to"be smart". It'll now > set them to 2 hours/1 second by default. I looked quickly at the RFC > and didn't find the exact values there, so those values are the > documented out-of-the-box defaults on Windows. I can easily change > them to RFC values if someone can find them for me :) > > It's also merged with roberts macos patch, since they were conflicting. > > Doc changes not included, but I'll get those in before commit. > > Comments?
Looks generally OK, though my knowledge of Windows is pretty limited. We'd better get this committed PDQ if it's going into beta3, else there won't be a full buildfarm cycle before we wrap. (BTW, there are two buildfarm machines - wigeon and orangutan - that are consistently failing with rather bizarre error messages. Are these real failures or are those machines just messed up?) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
