| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexey Vasiliev <leopard_ne(at)inbox(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: add recovery_timeout option to control timeout of restore_command nonzero status code |
| Date: | 2014-12-30 12:33:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQCPxkL85vseuoPp3fqE4JoooiEe-3kgdL3mUEFaWKUmw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Alexey Vasiliev <leopard_ne(at)inbox(dot)ru> wrote:
> To not modify current pg_usleep calculation, I changed
> restore_command_retry_interval value to seconds (not milliseconds). In this
> case, min value - 1 second.
Er, what the problem with not changing 1000000L to 1000L? The unit of
your parameter is ms AFAIK.
Also, I am not really getting the meaning of this paragraph:
+ <para>
+ This is useful, if I using for restore of wal logs some
+ external storage and no matter what the slave database
+ will lag behind the master.
+ </para>
Could you be more explicit here? What do you want to mean here?
(btw, please let's keep the thread readable and not reply at the top
of each post).
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bernd Helmle | 2014-12-30 12:35:50 | Re: [HACKERS] ON_ERROR_ROLLBACK |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-12-30 12:27:44 | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |