From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(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: | 2012-09-18 12:32:43 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwG2cWJ+Fr+AroXEA3=26Yrc_C4yMW6HJ8rhX9nKm7Z0NA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
> To define the behavior correctly, according to me there are 2 options now:
>
> Approach-1 :
> Document that both(sender and receiver) the timeout parameters should be
> greater than wal_receiver_status_interval.
> If both are greater, then I think it might never timeout due to Idle.
In this approach, keepalive messages are sent each wal_receiver_status_interval?
> 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.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-09-18 12:50:33 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |
Previous Message | kamalnitya87 | 2012-09-18 12:26:27 | BUG #7554: save image into database using jsp and servlet |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-09-18 12:50:33 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |
Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2012-09-18 09:32:50 | Re: [PATCH]Tablesample Submission |