| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Robert Haas'" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'Heikki Linnakangas'" <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, "'Fujii Masao'" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |
| Date: | 2012-10-08 14:42:23 |
| Message-ID: | 007601cda563$21bde1d0$6539a570$@kapila@huawei.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
> On Monday, October 08, 2012 7:38 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > 1. One new configuration parameter wal_receiver_timeout is added to
> detect timeout at receiver task.
> > 2. Existing parameter replication_timeout is renamed to
> wal_sender_timeout.
>
> -1 from me on a backward compatibility break here. I don't know what
> else to call the new GUC (replication_server_timeout?) but I'm not
> excited about breaking existing conf files, nor do I particularly like
> the proposed new names.
How about following:
1. replication_client_timeout -- shouldn't it be client as new configuration
is for wal receiver
2. replication_standby_timeout
If we introduce a new parameter for wal receiver, wouldn't
replication_timeout be confusing for user?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | serovov+pgsql | 2012-10-09 08:48:01 | BUG #7589: Canceled "CREATE UNIQUE INDEX CONCURRENTLY" leave not-fully-build index existing |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-10-08 14:08:00 | Re: BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-10-08 14:42:27 | why can't plpgsql return a row-expression? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-10-08 14:18:04 | Re: Missing OID define |