From: Nagaura, Ryohei [mailto:nagaura.ryo...@jp.fujitsu.com] > BTW, tcp_user_timeout parameter of servers and clients have same name in > my current implementation. > I think it would be better different name rather than same name. > I'll name them as the following a) or b): > a) server_tcp_user_timeout and client_tcp_user_timeout > b) tcp_user_timeout and user_timeout > b) is the same as the naming convention of keepalive, but it is not > user-friendly. > Do you come up with better name? > Or opinion?
a) is not always accurate, because libpq is also used in the server. For example, postgres_fdw and WAL receiver in streaming replication. I'm OK with either the current naming or b). Frankly, I felt a bit strange when I first saw the keepalive parameters, wondering why the same names were not chosen. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
