On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 15:32, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Committed. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
