Re: Missing wal_receiver_status_interval in Subscribers section - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Missing wal_receiver_status_interval in Subscribers section
Date
Msg-id 20180123233604.GB26207@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Missing wal_receiver_status_interval in Subscribers section  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Missing wal_receiver_status_interval in Subscribers section
List pgsql-hackers
Can someone confirm this so I can apply this patch?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 06:34:29PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I found that the doc says in 19.6.4. Subscribers section that "Note
> that wal_receiver_timeout and wal_retrieve_retry_interval
> configuration parameters affect the logical replication workers as
> well" but subscriber actually uses wal_receiver_status_interval as
> well. So I think we should mention it as well. Any thoughts?
> 
> Attached patch adds wal_receiver_stats_interval to the doc.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Masahiko Sawada
> NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
> NTT Open Source Software Center

> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
> index 996e825..3c8c504 100644
> --- a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
> @@ -3410,7 +3410,8 @@ ANY <replaceable class="parameter">num_sync</replaceable> ( <replaceable class="
>       </para>
>  
>       <para>
> -      Note that <varname>wal_receiver_timeout</varname> and
> +      Note that <varname>wal_receiver_timeout</varname>,
> +      <varname>wal_receiver_status_interval</varname> and
>        <varname>wal_retrieve_retry_interval</varname> configuration parameters
>        affect the logical replication workers as well.
>       </para>


-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Planning counters in pg_stat_statements
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: [SenderAddress Forgery]Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning