| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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: BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |
| Date: | 2012-10-01 15:06:12 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYB-qA4yy22iE=gqdhNHwbbb9EF4LLmLit5649ypnUisw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> Hmm, I think we need to step back a bit. I've never liked the way
> replication_timeout works, where it's the user's responsibility to set
> wal_receiver_status_interval < replication_timeout. It's not very
> user-friendly. I'd rather not copy that same design to this walreceiver
> timeout. If there's two different timeouts like that, it's even worse,
> because it's easy to confuse the two.
I agree, but also note that wal_receiver_status_interval serves
another user-visible purpose as well.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-10-01 16:57:34 | Re: BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-10-01 14:30:18 | Re: BUG #7573: data loss in corner case using delete_old_cluster.sh (pg_upgrade) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-10-01 15:22:21 | Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2012-10-01 15:02:39 | Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements |