Re: SO_KEEPALIVE

Tom Lane wrote:

> On the other hand, it seems to me a client-side SO_KEEPALIVE would only
> be interesting for completely passive clients (perhaps one that sits
> waiting for NOTIFY messages?)  A normal client will try to issue some
> kind of database command once in awhile, and as soon as that happens,
> there is a reasonably short timeout before connection failure is reported.

If you're unlucky, the server could go down while you're blocked waiting
for a query response..

-O