On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:03 PM Fujii Masao wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote: >> To define the behavior correctly, according to me there are 2 options now: > >> Approach-1 : >> Document that both(sender and receiver) the timeout parameters should be >> greater than wal_receiver_status_interval. >> If both are greater, then I think it might never timeout due to Idle.
> In this approach, keepalive messages are sent each wal_receiver_status_interval? wal_receiver_status_interval or sleeptime whichever is smaller. >> Approach-2 : >> Provide a variable wal_send_status_interval, such that if this is 0, then >> the current behavior would prevail and if its non-zero then KeepAlive >> message would be send maximum after that time. >> The modified code of WALSendLoop will be as follows: <snip> >> Which way you think is better or you have any other idea to handle. > I think #2 is better because it's more intuitive to a user. I shall update the Patch as per Approach-2 and upload the same. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
