Hi, Shveta
Thanks for your comments! On Thursday, January 12, 2023 6:51 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, DBAs may set wal_receiver_status_interval to more than > > wal_sender_timeout by mistake. > > > > But to handle the scenario we must compare between min_apply_delay *on > > subscriber* and wal_sender_timeout *on publisher*. Both values are not > > transferred to opposite sides, so the WARNING cannot be raised. I > > considered that such a mechanism seemed to be complex. The discussion > around [1] may be useful. > > > > [1]: > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1Lq%2Bh8qo%2BrqGU-E%2B > hwJK > > AHYocV54y4pvou4rLysCgYD-g%40mail.gmail.com > > > > okay, I see. So even when 'wal_receiver_status_interval' is set to 0, no > log/warning is needed when the user tries to set min_apply_delay>0? > Are we good with doc alone? Yes. As far as I can remember, we don't emit log or warning for some kind of combination of those parameters (in the context of timeout too). So, it should be fine. > One trivial correction in config.sgml: > + terminates due to the timeout errors. Hence, make sure this parameter > + shorter than the <literal>wal_sender_timeout</literal> of the > publisher. > Hence, make sure this parameter is shorter... <is missing> Fixed. Kindly have a look at the latest patch shared in [1]. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/TYCPR01MB83739C6133B50DDA8BAD1601EDFD9%40TYCPR01MB8373.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com Best Regards, Takamichi Osumi
