On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:03 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.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? wal_receiver_status_interval or sleeptime whichever is smaller.
>> 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.
I shall update the Patch as per Approach-2 and upload the same.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
