On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com> wrote:
> To define the behavior correctly, according to me there are 2 options now:
>
> Approach-1 :
> Document that both(sender and receiver) the timeout parameters should be
> greater than wal_receiver_status_interval.
> If both are greater, then I think it might never timeout due to Idle.
In this approach, keepalive messages are sent each wal_receiver_status_interval?
> Approach-2 :
> Provide a variable wal_send_status_interval, such that if this is 0, then
> the current behavior would prevail and if its non-zero then KeepAlive
> message would be send maximum after that time.
> The modified code of WALSendLoop will be as follows:
<snip>
> Which way you think is better or you have any other idea to handle.
I think #2 is better because it's more intuitive to a user.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
