Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
| От | Fujii Masao |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: wal_sender_delay is still required? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTi=oWz9XUqORUHH3Fx_ee+4dKkzDMfvO7_NBFGsf@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: wal_sender_delay is still required? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes: >> One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to >> detect the unexpected death of postmaster (by calling PostmasterIsAlive()). >> This is OK for me. But does anyone want to specify the delay to detect >> that within a short time? > > Oh. Hm. I'm hesitant to remove the setting if there's still some > behavior that it would control. Maybe we should just crank up the > default value instead. 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. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: