Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> writes:
> On Jun 19, 2010, at 21:13 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is nonsense --- the slave's kernel *will* eventually notice that
>> the TCP connection is dead, and tell walreceiver so. I don't doubt
>> that the standard TCP timeout is longer than people want to wait for
>> that, but claiming that it will never happen is simply wrong.
> No, Robert is correct AFAIK. If you're *waiting* for data, TCP
> generates no traffic (expect with keepalive enabled).
Mph. I was thinking that keepalive was on by default with a very long
interval, but I see this isn't so. However, if we enable keepalive,
then it's irrelevant to the point anyway. Nobody's produced any
evidence that keepalive is an unsuitable solution.
regards, tom lane