On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> Hmm, I think we need to step back a bit. I've never liked the way
> replication_timeout works, where it's the user's responsibility to set
> wal_receiver_status_interval < replication_timeout. It's not very
> user-friendly. I'd rather not copy that same design to this walreceiver
> timeout. If there's two different timeouts like that, it's even worse,
> because it's easy to confuse the two.
I agree, but also note that wal_receiver_status_interval serves
another user-visible purpose as well.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
