Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to
>>> detect the unexpected death of postmaster (by calling PostmasterIsAlive()).
>>> This is OK for me. But does anyone want to specify the delay to detect
>>> that within a short time?
>>
>> Oh.  Hm.  I'm hesitant to remove the setting if there's still some
>> behavior that it would control.  Maybe we should just crank up the
>> default value instead.
>
> Fair enough. How about increasing the default to 10 seconds?
> Since bgwriter has already using 10s as a nap time if there is no
> configured activity, I think that 10s is non-nonsense default value.

What do we get out of making this non-configurable?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company