On Monday, January 26th, 2026 at 15:08, Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote: > Regarding the GUC name, wal_sender_shutdown seems simple and sufficient to me. > This isn't a blocker, so I'm fine with the current name for now and > revisiting it later if needed.
Are we considering other approaches to this ? Having the behavior be either "wait indefinitely" or "terminate immediately" is a bit coarse I think: a timeout for the wait (maybe named wal_sender_stop_timeout ?) would allow for the same usage as this patch provides (set it to -1 for indefinite wait, 0 for immediate shutdown, or any positive value to give a chance to the walsender to catch up before we terminate it forcibly). The problem we have as of now is when the walreceiver is indeed connected and not reaching wal_sender_timeout as it's still processing: a distinct timeout would alleviate that. Regards, -- Ronan Dunklau
