On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 03:24:01PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> It seems to me that the comment on top of WaitLatch should be clearer
> about that, and that the current state leads to confusion. Another
> thing coming to my mind is that I think it would be useful to make the
> timeout configurable so as instances can react more quickly in the
> case of a sudden death of the WAL receiver (or to check faster for a
> trigger file if the HA application is to lazy to send a signal to the
> standby host).
>
> Attached is a patch to improve the comment for now.
So, does somebody have an objection if I apply the comment patch? Per
the reasons above, the proposed patch is not correct, but the code can
be more descriptive.
--
Michael
