On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Petr Jelinek
<petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I am not quite sure adding more GUCs is all that great option. When
> writing the patches I was wondering if we should perhaps rename the
> wal_receiver_timeout and wal_retrieve_retry_interval to something that
> makes more sense for both physical and logical replication though.
It seems to me that you should really have a different GUC,
wal_retrieve_retry_interval has been designed to work in the startup
process, and I think that it should still only behave as originally
designed. And at some point I think that it would make as well sense
to be able to make this parameter settable at worker-level.
--
Michael
