Re: SO_KEEPALIVE

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SO_KEEPALIVE
Date: 2005-05-16 16:40:36
Message-ID: 18682.1116261636@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> writes:
> How come we don't set SO_KEEPALIVE in libpq?
> Is there any reason why we wouldn't want it on?

Is there any reason we *would* want it on? The server-side keepalive
should be sufficient to get whatever useful impact it might have.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lamar Owen 2005-05-16 16:50:25 Re: pgFoundry
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-05-16 16:35:35 Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations