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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?
Date
Msg-id 7487.1291690192@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
> One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to
> detect the unexpected death of postmaster (by calling PostmasterIsAlive()).
> This is OK for me. But does anyone want to specify the delay to detect
> that within a short time?

Oh.  Hm.  I'm hesitant to remove the setting if there's still some
behavior that it would control.  Maybe we should just crank up the
default value instead.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: profiling connection overhead
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: profiling connection overhead