From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: wal_sender_delay is still required? |
Date: | 2010-12-07 03:07:20 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=oWz9XUqORUHH3Fx_ee+4dKkzDMfvO7_NBFGsf@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to
>> detect the unexpected death of postmaster (by calling PostmasterIsAlive()).
>> This is OK for me. But does anyone want to specify the delay to detect
>> that within a short time?
>
> Oh. Hm. I'm hesitant to remove the setting if there's still some
> behavior that it would control. Maybe we should just crank up the
> default value instead.
Fair enough. How about increasing the default to 10 seconds?
Since bgwriter has already using 10s as a nap time if there is no
configured activity, I think that 10s is non-nonsense default value.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Koichi Suzuki | 2010-12-07 03:13:23 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-12-07 03:02:00 | Re: wal_sender_delay is still required? |