Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: wal_sender_delay is still required? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | AANLkTike+VzydFsEgjqTCKcobp302izpiRYHa==wgdMB@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: wal_sender_delay is still required? (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. What do we get out of making this non-configurable? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: