| From: | "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Logical replication timeout problem |
| Date: | 2022-02-08 02:59:31 |
| Message-ID: | OS3PR01MB62750BF8A900D051BDA5C45E9E2D9@OS3PR01MB6275.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 28, 2022 at 19:36 PM Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> shouldn't we use receiver_timeout in place of wal_sender_timeout because de
> problem comes from the consummer.
Thanks for your review.
IMO, because it is a bug fix on the publisher-side, and the keepalive message
is sent based on wal_sender_timeout in the existing code. So keep it consistent
with the existing code.
Regards,
Wang wei
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-02-08 02:59:34 | RE: Logical replication timeout problem |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-02-08 02:57:40 | Re: Refactoring the regression tests for more independence |