RE: Timeout parameters
От | Tsunakawa, Takayuki |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Timeout parameters |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FB9ED53@G01JPEXMBYT05 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Timeout parameters ("Nagaura, Ryohei" <nagaura.ryohei@jp.fujitsu.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: Nagaura, Ryohei [mailto:nagaura.ryohei@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 streamingreplication. I'm OK with either the current naming or b). Frankly, I felt a bit strange when I first saw the keepalive parameters, wonderingwhy the same names were not chosen. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: