On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:38 PM, 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.
Agreed.
I'd like to specify the replication timeout like we do TCP keepalives, i.e.,
what about introducing something like following parameters?
walsender_keepalives_idle walsender_keepalives_interval walsender_keeaplives_count walreceiver_keepalives_idle
walreceiver_keepalives_interval walreceiver_keepalives_count
I believe many users are basically familiar with TCP keepalives and how to
specify it. So I think that this approach would be intuitive to users. Also
this approach includes your proposal. If you specify
walsender_keepalives_idle = walsender_timeout / 2 walsender_keepalives_interval = -1 (disable; Ping is never sent
again if there is no reply after first Ping is sent) walsender_keepalives_count = 1
the replication timeout works as you proposed. But of course the downside
of this approach is that the number of parameter for replication timeout is
increased from two (replication_timeout and
wal_receiver_status_interval) to six,
and those parameters are confusingly similar to existing
tcp_keepalives parameters,
which might cause another confusion to users. One idea to solve this problem is
to use existing tcp_keepalives paramters values for the replication timeout.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
