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: | 2018-09-21 04:42:01 |
Message-ID: | 20180921044201.GG1338@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:28:07AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> I find it more user friendly to include a description somewhere that
> the user can tune the timeout per standby, like I added a tip in the
> description of wal_sender_timeout. I'm afraid users won't know
> whether and how to tune the setting per standby, as libpq's options
> parameter doesn't seem well-known in my experience.
But that does not apply to this single parameter, no? I would think
that a section in recovery.conf is more adapted. I can see that the
patch I proposed up-thread could be more precise though, so why not
adding at an extra paragraph? Here is an idea:
"For a cluster distributed across multiple geographic locations, using
a different value per location brings more flexibility in the cluster
management. A smaller value is useful for faster failure detection with
a standby having a low connection latency, and a larger value helps in
judging better the health of a standby if located in a remote location,
with a longer connection latency."
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-09-21 04:43:31 | Re: Strange failure in LWLock on skink in REL9_5_STABLE |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-09-21 04:36:06 | Re: Strange failure in LWLock on skink in REL9_5_STABLE |