Re: documentation for wal_retrieve_retry_interval

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: documentation for wal_retrieve_retry_interval
Date: 2015-11-20 04:26:15
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQCJUtJ1OTQq0vM2bcrmHBGKy5fOx4kBOPoxgYqRHrX2w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> There is no documentation what use case the new (in 9.5) parameter
> wal_retrieve_retry_interval is for. The commit message
> (5d2b45e3f78a85639f30431181c06d4c3221c5a1) alludes to something, but
> even that is not clear, and obviously in the wrong place. Could we come
> up with something more to put into the documentation?

Yeah, we should highlight the facts that recovery can be made more
responsive when attempting to detect WAL. In archive recovery, this
can be translated by the fact that new WAL segments can be detected
more quickly and make recovery more responsive. The opposite is
actually what leaded to the patch: requirement was to limit the number
of times archive host was requested with a server that had low
activity, the archive host being on AWS.

An idea would be something like the patch attached. Thoughts?
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
20151120_wal_retry_interval_doc.patch binary/octet-stream 1.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2015-11-20 04:59:15 Re: Parallel Seq Scan
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2015-11-20 03:46:20 Minor ON CONFLICT comment tweak