On Jun 24, 2010, at 16:45 , Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 2010, at 16:30 , Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>>>>> There isn't any need at at all for this. We can already add options on
>>>>> the libpq connection line.
>>>>
>>>>> options = '-o tcp_keepalives_idle=X
>>>>> tcp_keepalives_interval=Y
>>>>> tcp_keepalives_count=Z'
>>>>
>>>> Huh? The above is 100% fanciful; there was no code in libpq or anywhere
>>>> else that would have processed such a thing.
>>>
>>> You can do this:
>>>
>>> psql "host=127.0.0.1 options='-c tcp_keepalives_idle=1'"
>>
>> Hm, seems a bit error-prone though. The difference between the above
>>
>> psql "host=127.0.0.1 keepalives=1"
>>
>> isn't immediately obvious I'd say.
>>
>> Should we maybe rename the libpq-side parameters to tcp_client_keepalives, tcp_client_keepalives_idle,
tcp_client_keepalives_countand tcp_client_keepalives_interval? Or do we expect people who fiddle with those parameters
tounderstand the subtle difference?
>
> I think the existing names are fine - people should understand that
> "options" means "server-side options" and that anything else is a
> client-side option. However, if there's a strong consensus the other
> way and someone feels like working up a patch, that's fine too.
I'd volunteer to create the patch if people think renaming the libpq options is a good idea.
best regards,
Florian Pflug