On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 03:24:01PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > It seems to me that the comment on top of WaitLatch should be clearer > about that, and that the current state leads to confusion. Another > thing coming to my mind is that I think it would be useful to make the > timeout configurable so as instances can react more quickly in the > case of a sudden death of the WAL receiver (or to check faster for a > trigger file if the HA application is to lazy to send a signal to the > standby host). > > Attached is a patch to improve the comment for now.
So, does somebody have an objection if I apply the comment patch? Per the reasons above, the proposed patch is not correct, but the code can be more descriptive. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
