RE: Timeout parameters

From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael@paquier.xyz]
> I have just committed the GUC and libpq portion for TCP_USER_TIMEOUT after
> a last lookup, and I have cleaned up a couple of places. 

Thank you for further cleanup and committing.


> For the socket_timeout stuff, its way of solving the problem it thinks is
> solves does not seem right to me, and this thread has not reached a consensus
> anyway, so I have discarded the issue.
> 
> I am marking the CF entry as committed.  In the future, it would be better
> to not propose multiple concepts on the same thread, and if the
> socket_timeout business is resubmitted, I would suggest a completely new
> CF entry, and a new thread.

Understood.  Looking back the review process, it seems that tcp_user_timeout and socket_timeout should have been
handledin separate threads.
 


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa