Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:39:33 +0900 от Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Alexey Vasiliev <leopard_ne@inbox.ru> wrote:
> >> To not modify current pg_usleep calculation, I changed
> >> restore_command_retry_interval value to seconds (not milliseconds). In this
> >> case, min value - 1 second.
> > Er, what the problem with not changing 1000000L to 1000L? The unit of
> > your parameter is ms AFAIK.
> Of course I meant in the previous version of the patch not the current
> one. Wouldn't it be useful to use it with for example retry intervals
> of the order of 100ms~300ms for some cases?
> --
> Michael
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
Thanks, patch changed.
As I understand now = (pg_time_t) time(NULL); return time in seconds, what is why I multiply value to 1000 to compare
withrestore_command_retry_interval in milliseconds.
I am not sure about small retry interval of time, in my cases I need interval bigger 5 seconds (20-40 seconds). Right
nowI limiting this value be bigger 100 milliseconds.
--
Alexey Vasiliev
