Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?