Hi, Alexander
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 at 16:24, Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 10:47 AM Andrey Silitskiy > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Mar 2026 Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote: >> > At first glance, wal_sender_shutdown_timeout seems to have the wrong >> > type. >> >> Fixed. > > I've revised this patch fixing grammar in commit message, comments and > documentation. > > I think the current patch addresses all the main concerns raised in > the thread. The patch doesn't unconditionally change the behavior: it > introduces a new GUC, which could be set on per-connection basis, and > also affects physical WAL senders. The GUC specifies timeout, which > gives user a flexibility. The default value of the GUC is -1 > (disabled). So, no behavior change by default. Also, it doesn't > require replication protocol change. New WalSndDoneImmediate() sends > done message to the receiver just like WalSndDone(). So, existing > clients should be OK. Thanks for updating the patch. 1. The shutdown_request_timestamp is used only in WalSndCheckShutdownTimeOut(). Would it make sense to declare it inside this function instead? 2. +static void +WalSndDoneImmediate() +{ We should add `void` to the parameter list here to match the declaration: > > I'm going to push this if no objections. > > ------ > Regards, > Alexander Korotkov > Supabase > > [2. application/x-patch; > v3-0001-Introduce-a-new-wal_sender_shutdown_timeout-GUC.patch]... -- Regards, Japin Li ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co., Ltd.
