At Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:22:33 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote in <CAD21AoBr2Y=n4ih8+6m5ara2gwdke6zrzwaqjzux6erz9py...@mail.gmail.com> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 01:14:12AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > >> Some customer wants to change the setting per standby, i.e., a shorter > >> timeout for a standby in the same region to enable faster detection > >> failure and failover, and a longer timeout for a standby in the remote > >> region (for disaster recovery) to avoid mis-judging its health. > > > > This argument is sensible. > > > >> The current PGC_HUP allows to change the setting by editing > >> postgresql.conf or ALTER SYSTEM and then sending SIGHUP to a specific > >> walsender. But that's not easy to use. The user has to do it upon > >> every switchover and failover. > >> > >> With PGC_BACKEND, the user would be able to tune the timeout as follows: > >> > >> [recovery.conf] > >> primary_conninfo = '... options=''-c wal_sender_timeout=60000'' ...' > >> > >> With PGC_USERSET, the user would be able to use different user > >> accounts for each standby, and tune the setting as follows: > >> > >> ALTER USER repluser_remote SET wal_sender_timeout = 60000; > > > > It seems to me that switching to PGC_BACKENDwould cover already all the > > use-cases you are mentioning, as at the end one would just want to > > adjust the WAL sender timeout on a connection basis depending on the > > geographical location of the receiver and the latency between primary > > and standby. > > +1 for PGC_BACKEND. It looks enough for most use cases.
+1, and we need a means to see the actual value, in pg_stat_replication? regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
