From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Masahiko Sawada' <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Changing the setting of wal_sender_timeout per standby |
Date: | 2018-09-19 00:14:57 |
Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FAB26F2@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Masahiko Sawada [mailto:sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com]
> I didn't follow the first sentence of the above hunk. Is the
> wal_sender_timeout relevant with %q?
Ouch, that's a careless mistake. I copied the paragraph from another parameter and failed to remove some sentence. Patch revised.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
walsender_timeout_PGC_BACKEND_v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-09-19 00:21:17 | heap_sync seems rather oblivious to partitioned tables (wal_level=minimal) |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-09-18 23:34:27 | Re: Collation versioning |