RE: Changing the setting of wal_sender_timeout per standby

From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Masahiko Sawada' <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Changing the setting of wal_sender_timeout per standby
Date: 2018-09-19 00:14:57
Message-ID: 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FAB26F2@G01JPEXMBYT05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: Masahiko Sawada [mailto:sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com]
> I didn't follow the first sentence of the above hunk. Is the
> wal_sender_timeout relevant with %q?

Ouch, that's a careless mistake. I copied the paragraph from another parameter and failed to remove some sentence. Patch revised.

Takayuki Tsunakawa

Attachment Content-Type Size
walsender_timeout_PGC_BACKEND_v2.patch application/octet-stream 1.7 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2018-09-19 00:21:17 heap_sync seems rather oblivious to partitioned tables (wal_level=minimal)
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2018-09-18 23:34:27 Re: Collation versioning