On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Is there plan to implement such external functions before 9.2 release? >>> If not, keepalive protocol seems to be almost useless because there is >>> no use of it for a user and the increase in the number of packets might >>> increase the replication performance overhead slightly. No? > >> Good point. IMHO, this shouldn't really have been committed like >> this, but since it was, we had better fix it, either by reverting the >> change or forcing an initdb to expose the functionality. > > I see no reason to rip the code out if we have plans to make use of it > in the near future. I am also not for going back into development mode > on 9.2, which is what adding new functions now would amount to. What's > wrong with leaving well enough alone? It's not like there is no > unfinished work anywhere else in Postgres ...
So, extra TCP overhead for no user-visible benefit doesn't bother you? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
