Re: Replication server timeout patch

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> IMHO, that's so broken as to be useless.
>
> I would really like to have a solution to this problem, though.
> Relying on TCP keepalives is weak.

Agreed.

I updated the replication timeout patch which I submitted before.
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/AANLkTinSvcdAYryNfZqd0wepyh1Pf7YX6Q0KxhZjas6a%40mail.gmail.com

Since the patch implements also non-blocking send functions,
the timeout can work properly even when the send buffer has
been filled up.

> There are two things that I think are pretty clear. If the receiver
> has wal_receiver_status_interval=0, then we should ignore
> replication_timeout for that connection.

The patch still doesn't check that wal_receiver_status_interval
is set up properly. I'll implement that later.

Regards,

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center