RE: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)

Hi, Shveta

Thanks for your comments!
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 6:51 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Yes, DBAs may set wal_receiver_status_interval to more than
> > wal_sender_timeout by mistake.
> >
> > But to handle the scenario we must compare between min_apply_delay *on
> > subscriber* and wal_sender_timeout *on publisher*. Both values are not
> > transferred to opposite sides, so the WARNING cannot be raised. I
> > considered that such a mechanism seemed to be complex. The discussion
> around [1] may be useful.
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1Lq%2Bh8qo%2BrqGU-E%2B
> hwJK
> > AHYocV54y4pvou4rLysCgYD-g%40mail.gmail.com
> >
>
> okay, I see. So even when 'wal_receiver_status_interval' is set to 0, no
> log/warning is needed when the user tries to set min_apply_delay>0?
> Are we good with doc alone?
Yes. As far as I can remember, we don't emit log or warning
for some kind of combination of those parameters (in the context
of timeout too). So, it should be fine.

> One trivial correction in config.sgml:
> + terminates due to the timeout errors. Hence, make sure this parameter
> + shorter than the <literal>wal_sender_timeout</literal> of the
> publisher.
> Hence, make sure this parameter is shorter... <is missing>
Fixed.

Kindly have a look at the latest patch shared in [1].

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/TYCPR01MB83739C6133B50DDA8BAD1601EDFD9%40TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com

Best Regards,
Takamichi Osumi