Re: Implement support for TCP_KEEPCNT, TCP_KEEPIDLE, TCP_KEEPINTVL

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Is this the functionality we agreed we wanted?

I think it covers Tom's comments on the first version:

 - a GUC to turn off SO_KEEPALIVE isn't particularly useful
 - don't do redundant get/setsockopt calls on backend startup

-O