| From: | Amit kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |
| Date: | 2012-09-21 11:18:01 |
| Message-ID: | 6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C38285337FF@szxeml509-mbs |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:02 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
Please find a patch attached for implementation of Approach-2.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| replication_timeout_patch_v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 11.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-09-21 11:43:00 | Re: BUG #7562: could not read block 0 in file "base/16385/16585": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2012-09-21 09:34:49 | Re: BUG #7562: could not read block 0 in file "base/16385/16585": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2012-09-21 11:20:49 | Re: 64-bit API for large object |
| Previous Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-09-21 10:11:29 | Re: 64-bit API for large object |