Dear Ronan,
Thanks for participating in the discussion.
On Jan 28, 2026 Ronan Dunklau <ronan(at)dunklau(dot)fr> wrote:
> ... a timeout for the wait (maybe named wal_sender_stop_timeout ?) would
> allow for the same usage ...
Sounds like an option.
This is also possible in the current implementation, but your option offers
a simpler interface if we do not plan to add new wallsender completion
modes.
The naming of the parameter is also a question, because wal_sender_timeout
already exists (which also fits the name wal_sender_stop_timeout quite
well).
The difference between these parameters may not be obvious to users.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Andrey Silitskiy
