Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHGQGwG2cWJ+Fr+AroXEA3=26Yrc_C4yMW6HJ8rhX9nKm7Z0NA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com> wrote: > To define the behavior correctly, according to me there are 2 options now: > > Approach-1 : > Document that both(sender and receiver) the timeout parameters should be > greater than wal_receiver_status_interval. > If both are greater, then I think it might never timeout due to Idle. In this approach, keepalive messages are sent each wal_receiver_status_interval? > Approach-2 : > Provide a variable wal_send_status_interval, such that if this is 0, then > the current behavior would prevail and if its non-zero then KeepAlive > message would be send maximum after that time. > The modified code of WALSendLoop will be as follows: <snip> > Which way you think is better or you have any other idea to handle. I think #2 is better because it's more intuitive to a user. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: