| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Logical replication launcher uses wal_retrieve_retry_interval |
| Date: | 2017-04-14 12:30:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSkkZ8avnf=f9YYhuGP5gLMO655oqX4F1zX-yGP+0LfVg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Petr Jelinek
<petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I am not quite sure adding more GUCs is all that great option. When
> writing the patches I was wondering if we should perhaps rename the
> wal_receiver_timeout and wal_retrieve_retry_interval to something that
> makes more sense for both physical and logical replication though.
It seems to me that you should really have a different GUC,
wal_retrieve_retry_interval has been designed to work in the startup
process, and I think that it should still only behave as originally
designed. And at some point I think that it would make as well sense
to be able to make this parameter settable at worker-level.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-04-14 12:39:17 | Re: Logical replication launcher uses wal_retrieve_retry_interval |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-04-14 12:26:44 | Re: Letting the client choose the protocol to use during a SASL exchange |