On Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:04 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 19.10.2012 14:42, Amit kapila wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:49 PM Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> Before implementing the timeout parameter, I think that it's better
> to change
> >> both pg_basebackup background process and pg_receivexlog so that they
> >> send back the reply message immediately when they receive the
> keepalive
> >> message requesting the reply. Currently, they always ignore such
> keepalive
> >> message, so status interval parameter (-s) in them always must be set
> to
> >> the value less than replication timeout. We can avoid this
> troublesome
> >> parameter setting by introducing the same logic of walreceiver into
> both
> >> pg_basebackup background process and pg_receivexlog.
> >
> > Please find the patch attached to address the modification mentioned
> by you (send immediate reply for keepalive).
> > Both basebackup and pg_receivexlog uses the same function
> ReceiveXLogStream, so single change for both will address the issue.
>
> Thanks, committed this one after shuffling it around the changes I
> committed yesterday. I also updated the docs to not claim that -s option
> is required to avoid timeout disconnects anymore.
Thank you.
However I think still the issue will not be completely solved.
pg_basebackup/pg_receivexlog can still take long time to
detect network break as they don't have timeout concept. To do that I have
sent one proposal which is mentioned at end of mail chain:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C3828
53BBED@szxeml509-mbs
Do you think there is any need to introduce such mechanism in
pg_basebackup/pg_receivexlog?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
