Hello, Magnus. You wrote:
MH> 2010/6/30 Pavel Golub <pa...@microolap.com>: >> Hello, Bruce. >> >> You wrote: >> >> BM> Tom Lane wrote: >>>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> >> What I was trying to say is I think we could dispense with the >>>> >> setsockopt() code path, and just always use the WSAIoctl() path anytime >>>> >> keepalives are turned on. I don't know what "system default values" >>>> >> you're speaking of, if they're not the registry entries; and I >>>> >> definitely don't see the point of consulting such values if they aren't >>>> >> user-settable. We might as well just consult the RFCs and be done. >>>> >>>> > FWIW, I think I prefer Magnus's approach, but I'm not 100% sure I can >>>> > defend that preference... >>>> >>>> Well, basically what I don't like about Magnus' proposal is that setting >>>> one of the two values changes the default that will be used for the >>>> other one. (Or, if it does not change the default, the extra code is >>>> useless anyway.) If we just always go through the WSAIoctl() path then >>>> we can clearly document "the default for this on Windows is so-and-so". >>>> How is the documentation going to explain the behavior of the proposed >>>> code? >> >> BM> Let's look at the usage probabilities. 99% of Win32 users will not use >> BM> any of these settings. >> >> Let me disagree with this statement. As DAC developer I'm faced with >> opposite reality. There are a lot of users demanding this >> functionality. MH> It's very intersting to hear from somebody who expects to actually use MH> this. But are you aware that we're only talking about *adjusting* the MH> keepalive values, not enabling them? Because we will, as the code MH> stands now, enable keepalive by defaults - just use the system default MH> values for timeout intervals. (Meaning this is how we do it on Unix as MH> of HEAD, irregardless of my patch) MH> Do you have an opinion on the two choices for handling keepalives_idle MH> and keepalives_interval? They basically are: MH> 1) When not configured, use system defaults. When only one of the two MH> parameters configured, use RFC default for the other one (overwrite MH> system default). MH> 2) When not configured, use RFC defaults (overwrite system defaults). MH> When only one of the two parameters configured, use RFC default for MH> the other one (overwrite system default) MH> 3) When not configured, use system defaults. When only one of the two MH> parameters configured, throw error. MH> I can see pros and cons with both. Given that I still think *most* MH> people will not configure the intervals at all, I think #1 is the one MH> that follows "principle of least surprise". Perhaps option *3* is the MH> one that does this for partial configuration? Frankly speaking I cannot decide what is the best approach. :) It's up to you guys. -- With best wishes, Pavel mailto:pa...@gf.microolap.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
