"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> It sounds like it behaves just fine except for not detecting a
> broken connection.
Of course I meant in terms of the slave's attempts at retrieving
more WAL, not in terms of it applying a second time line. TCP
keepalive timeouts don't help with that part of it, just the failure
to recognize the broken connection. I suppose someone could argue
that's a *feature*, since it gives you two hours to manually
intervene before it does something stupid, but that hardly seems
like a solution....
-Kevin
