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: 2018-09-21 06:01:33
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 05:37:42AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> I think all of these are almost equally good. I chose (1) at first,
> and you chose (3). But (2) may be the best, because it's the natural
> place the user will see when configuring the standby, and it already
> contains an example of recovery.conf. We can add "options=''-c
> wal_sender_timeout=5000''" or something in that example. I'm OK with
> anyplace, but I recommend adding how to specify wal_sender_timeout in
> primary_conninfo, because libpq's options parameter may not be
> well-konown, and it's a bit difficult to figure out the need to
> enclose the value with double single-quotes.

I think that the description of wal_sender_timeout and its properties
should remain where the parameter is defined, so (3) is not a good
option in my opinion. (2) has a point with the use of quotes actually,
so why not just mention options=''-c wal_sender_timeout=5000'' in the
example of recovery.conf as you suggest and call it a day, but keep the
paragraph I suggested in (1)?

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2018-09-21 06:26:19 RE: Changing the setting of wal_sender_timeout per standby
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-09-21 05:52:01 Re: [PATCH] Tab completion for ALTER DATABASE … SET TABLESPACE