Re: [HACKERS] TCP keepalive support for libpq

2010-02-11 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
sible solution to me. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] TCP keepalive support for libpq

2010-02-11 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
ave a connection that I expect to stay around and be reliable. Whether that connection is over a UNIX socket, a TCP socket or something else is something I would rather not have to worry about; it feels very much like an abstraction violation. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's

Re: [HACKERS] TCP keepalive support for libpq

2010-02-09 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
I could see it being useful, but not in the normal case. | If not, I think this is small and trivial enough not to have to push | back for 9.1 ;) \o/ -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hacker

[HACKERS] TCP keepalive support for libpq

2010-02-09 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
. The attached patch unconditionally adds keepalives. I chose unconditionally as this is what the server does. We didn't need the ability to tune the timeouts, but that could be added with reasonable ease. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends