On 18/04/17 16:24, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/16/17 22:40, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Attached two patches add new GUCs apply_worker_timeout and
>> apply_worker_launch_interval which are used instead of
>> wal_receiver_timeout and wal_retrieve_retry_timeout. These new
>> parameters are not settable at worker-level so far.
>
> Under what circumstances are these needed? Does anyone ever set these?
>
Personally I don't see need for apply_worker_timeout, no idea why that
can't use wal_receiver_timeout, the mechanics are exactly same, and it's
IMHO only needed because default tcp keepalive settings are usually too
generous. As for apply_worker_launch_interval, I think we want different
name so that it can be used for tablesync rate limiting as well.
-- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
