Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown

From: Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
Date: 2012-09-21 11:18:01
Message-ID: 6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C38285337FF@szxeml509-mbs
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:02 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:

>> Approach-2 :
>> Provide a variable wal_send_status_interval, such that if this is 0, then
>> the current behavior would prevail and if its non-zero then KeepAlive
>> message would be send maximum after that time.
>> The modified code of WALSendLoop will be as follows:

<snip>
>> Which way you think is better or you have any other idea to handle.

>I think #2 is better because it's more intuitive to a user.

Please find a patch attached for implementation of Approach-2.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

Attachment Content-Type Size
replication_timeout_patch_v2.patch application/octet-stream 11.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2012-09-21 11:20:49 Re: 64-bit API for large object
Previous Message Kohei KaiGai 2012-09-21 10:11:29 Re: 64-bit API for large object

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2012-09-21 11:43:00 Re: BUG #7562: could not read block 0 in file "base/16385/16585": read only 0 of 8192 bytes
Previous Message Bernd Helmle 2012-09-21 09:34:49 Re: BUG #7562: could not read block 0 in file "base/16385/16585": read only 0 of 8192 bytes