| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Fujii Masao'" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |
| Date: | 2012-09-18 12:50:33 |
| Message-ID: | 003f01cd959c$317e9af0$947bd0d0$@kapila@huawei.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:03 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
>> To define the behavior correctly, according to me there are 2 options
now:
>
>> Approach-1 :
>> Document that both(sender and receiver) the timeout parameters should be
>> greater than wal_receiver_status_interval.
>> If both are greater, then I think it might never timeout due to Idle.
> In this approach, keepalive messages are sent each
wal_receiver_status_interval?
wal_receiver_status_interval or sleeptime whichever is smaller.
>> Approach-2 :
>> Provide a variable wal_send_status_interval, such that if this is 0, then
>> the current behavior would prevail and if its non-zero then KeepAlive
>> message would be send maximum after that time.
>> The modified code of WALSendLoop will be as follows:
<snip>
>> Which way you think is better or you have any other idea to handle.
> I think #2 is better because it's more intuitive to a user.
I shall update the Patch as per Approach-2 and upload the same.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | dsorensen | 2012-09-18 15:29:09 | BUG #7555: fail to install ora2pg through rhel5 postgresql repo (depsolv issues) |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-09-18 12:32:43 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit kapila | 2012-09-18 13:23:58 | Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views [Review of Patch] |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-09-18 12:32:43 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |