Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
Date: 2010-12-07 02:49:52
Message-ID: 7487.1291690192@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-12-07 02:55:11 Re: profiling connection overhead
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2010-12-07 02:48:55 Re: profiling connection overhead