Re: wal_sender_delay is still required? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
Date
Msg-id 4D696CDB.1080103@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 07.12.2010 05:51, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Fair enough. How about increasing the default to 10 seconds?
>>> Since bgwriter has already using 10s as a nap time if there is no
>>> configured activity, I think that 10s is non-nonsense default value.
>>
>> What do we get out of making this non-configurable?
>
> Which would make the setting of replication simpler, I think.
> But I agree to just increase the default value of wal_sender_delay
> rather than dropping it.

I dropped the ball on this one..

For comparison, the archiver process and autovacuum launcher wake up 
once a second to check if postmaster is still alive. bgwriter, when 
bgwriter_lru_maxpages and archive_timeout are set to 0 to disable it, 
checks for dead postmaster every 10 seconds.

I'll bump the default for wal_sender_delay to 1 second. Maybe an even 
higher value would be good, but it also seems good to kill replication 
connections in a timely fashion if postmaster dies.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: cross column correlation ...
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Generalized edit function?