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

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(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 12:32:43
Message-ID: CAHGQGwG2cWJ+Fr+AroXEA3=26Yrc_C4yMW6HJ8rhX9nKm7Z0NA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

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?

> 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.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2012-09-18 12:50:33 Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
Previous Message kamalnitya87 2012-09-18 12:26:27 BUG #7554: save image into database using jsp and servlet

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2012-09-18 12:50:33 Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
Previous Message Hitoshi Harada 2012-09-18 09:32:50 Re: [PATCH]Tablesample Submission