On 11/19/15 11:26 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> There is no documentation what use case the new (in 9.5) parameter
>> wal_retrieve_retry_interval is for. The commit message
>> (5d2b45e3f78a85639f30431181c06d4c3221c5a1) alludes to something, but
>> even that is not clear, and obviously in the wrong place. Could we come
>> up with something more to put into the documentation?
>
> Yeah, we should highlight the facts that recovery can be made more
> responsive when attempting to detect WAL. In archive recovery, this
> can be translated by the fact that new WAL segments can be detected
> more quickly and make recovery more responsive. The opposite is
> actually what leaded to the patch: requirement was to limit the number
> of times archive host was requested with a server that had low
> activity, the archive host being on AWS.
>
> An idea would be something like the patch attached. Thoughts?
Sounds good. Thanks!
