Re: Changing the setting of wal_sender_timeout per standby

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: 'Masahiko Sawada' <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2018-09-20 23:51:55
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 06:21:52AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> How embarrassing... I'm sorry to cause you trouble to point out a
> silly mistake like this (I thought I would write as you suggested, but
> it seems that I was not who I usually am.) The revised patch
> attached.

Thanks for the new version. Per my comments up-thread here, you cannot
actually use PGC_BACKEND:

This would break the case where this parameter is reloaded when a
session does not use a custom value for wal_sender_timeout. I have also
looked at all the code paths using wal_sender_timeout, and the change
looks safe to me. Please find attached an update, simplified, version.
Does that look fine to you?

Attachment Content-Type Size
wal-timeout-userset-michael.patch text/x-diff 1.2 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-09-20 23:59:32 Re: pgsql: Make WAL segment size configurable at initdb time.
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2018-09-20 23:40:40 transction_timestamp() inside of procedures