Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: wal_sender_delay is still required? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D696CDB.1080103@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: wal_sender_delay is still required? (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 07.12.2010 05:51, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Fair enough. How about increasing the default to 10 seconds? >>> Since bgwriter has already using 10s as a nap time if there is no >>> configured activity, I think that 10s is non-nonsense default value. >> >> What do we get out of making this non-configurable? > > Which would make the setting of replication simpler, I think. > But I agree to just increase the default value of wal_sender_delay > rather than dropping it. I dropped the ball on this one.. For comparison, the archiver process and autovacuum launcher wake up once a second to check if postmaster is still alive. bgwriter, when bgwriter_lru_maxpages and archive_timeout are set to 0 to disable it, checks for dead postmaster every 10 seconds. I'll bump the default for wal_sender_delay to 1 second. Maybe an even higher value would be good, but it also seems good to kill replication connections in a timely fashion if postmaster dies. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: