Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
Date: 2012-10-01 15:06:12
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYB-qA4yy22iE=gqdhNHwbbb9EF4LLmLit5649ypnUisw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> Hmm, I think we need to step back a bit. I've never liked the way
> replication_timeout works, where it's the user's responsibility to set
> wal_receiver_status_interval < replication_timeout. It's not very
> user-friendly. I'd rather not copy that same design to this walreceiver
> timeout. If there's two different timeouts like that, it's even worse,
> because it's easy to confuse the two.

I agree, but also note that wal_receiver_status_interval serves
another user-visible purpose as well.

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


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2012-10-01 15:22:21
Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements
Previous:From: Euler TaveiraDate: 2012-10-01 15:02:39
Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2012-10-01 16:57:34
Subject: Re: BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2012-10-01 14:30:18
Subject: Re: BUG #7573: data loss in corner case using delete_old_cluster.sh (pg_upgrade)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group