| From: | "K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore)" <niranjan(dot)k(at)nsn(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "ext Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Kolb, Harald (NSN - DE/Munich)" <harald(dot)kolb(at)nsn(dot)com>, "Czichy, Thoralf (NSN - FI/Helsinki)" <thoralf(dot)czichy(at)nsn(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Synchronous replication: replication_timeout parameter |
| Date: | 2009-05-04 17:13:06 |
| Message-ID: | 985D3C447786074E957A9001D62CDDD05A36BA@SGSIEXC009.nsn-intra.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
This is with respect to the planned GUC parameter 'replication_timeout'
which used in context with 'replication_timeout_action' parameter.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01231.php
Here the proposal is to use the milliseconds as the unit for the
'replication_timeout'. The client applications based on the type of
transactions ie if the applications support very large transactions and
if it uses low-end HW configurations for replication, then it need to
configure this parameter correctly to avoid unneccessary timeouts.
Are there any ideas already implemented in this front? Also are there
any possible conflicts because of inclusion of this parameter?
regards,
Niranjan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-04 17:34:41 | Re: conditional dropping of columns/constraints |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-04 16:42:20 | Re: windows shared memory error |