RE: Changing the setting of wal_sender_timeout per standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tsunakawa, Takayuki
Subject RE: Changing the setting of wal_sender_timeout per standby
Date
Msg-id 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FAB49D4@G01JPEXMBYT05
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Changing the setting of wal_sender_timeout per standby  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Changing the setting of wal_sender_timeout per standby
List pgsql-hackers
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael@paquier.xyz]
> Thanks for the new version.  Per my comments up-thread here, you cannot
> actually use PGC_BACKEND:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180919061303.GB19808@paquier.x
> yz
> 
> This would break the case where this parameter is reloaded when a session
> does not use a custom value for wal_sender_timeout.  I have also looked
> at all the code paths using wal_sender_timeout, and the change looks safe
> to me.  Please find attached an update, simplified, version.
> Does that look fine to you?

Thank you, PGC_USERSET is off course fine to me.  I thought PGC_BACKEND includes the capability of PGC_SIGHUP, because
PGC_BACKENDis placed after PGC_SIGHUP in the definition of enum GucContext.  That was a pitfall.  I should have paid
moreattention.
 

I find it more user friendly to include a description somewhere that the user can tune the timeout per standby, like I
addeda tip in the description of wal_sender_timeout.  I'm afraid users won't know whether and how to tune the setting
perstandby, as libpq's options parameter doesn't seem well-known in my experience.
 


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug fix for glibc broke freebsd build in REL_11_STABLE
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Strange failure in LWLock on skink in REL9_5_STABLE