Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
Date: 2010-12-07 03:51:58
Message-ID: AANLkTinO2Xm9c+szttMc3WpeU_CfAcymZK7rQk_8mAn3@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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?

Which would make the setting of replication simpler, I think.
But I agree to just increase the default value of wal_sender_delay
rather than dropping it.

Regards,

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-12-07 05:22:14 Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-12-07 03:22:57 Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?