On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
