| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Logical replication launcher uses wal_retrieve_retry_interval |
| Date: | 2017-04-18 16:00:43 |
| Message-ID: | b21049d4-41b7-592f-4881-6d204b78139d@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18/04/17 16:24, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/16/17 22:40, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Attached two patches add new GUCs apply_worker_timeout and
>> apply_worker_launch_interval which are used instead of
>> wal_receiver_timeout and wal_retrieve_retry_timeout. These new
>> parameters are not settable at worker-level so far.
>
> Under what circumstances are these needed? Does anyone ever set these?
>
Personally I don't see need for apply_worker_timeout, no idea why that
can't use wal_receiver_timeout, the mechanics are exactly same, and it's
IMHO only needed because default tcp keepalive settings are usually too
generous. As for apply_worker_launch_interval, I think we want different
name so that it can be used for tablesync rate limiting as well.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2017-04-18 16:08:46 | dtrace probes |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-04-18 15:59:43 | Re: Interval for launching the table sync worker |