From: | Tollef Fog Heen <tollef(dot)fog(dot)heen(at)collabora(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq |
Date: | 2010-02-11 17:08:03 |
Message-ID: | 87pr4bya30.fsf@qurzaw.linpro.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
]] Robert Haas
| I've sometimes wondered why keepalives aren't the default for all TCP
| connections. They seem like they're usually a Good Thing (TM), but I
| wonder if we can think of any situations where someone might not want
| them?
As somebody mentioned somewhere else (I think): If you pay per byte
transmitted, be it 3G/GPRS. Or if you're on a very, very high-latency
link or have no bandwidth. Like, a rocket to Mars or maybe the moon.
While I think they are valid use-cases, requiring people to change the
defaults if that kind of thing sounds like a sensible solution to me.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2010-02-11 17:08:30 | Re: Confusion over Python drivers |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-02-11 17:07:46 | Re: a common place for pl/perlu modules |