On Monday, October 01, 2012 8:36 PM Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: >> Hmm, I think we need to step back a bit. I've never liked the way >> replication_timeout works, where it's the user's responsibility to set >> wal_receiver_status_interval < replication_timeout. It's not very >> user-friendly. I'd rather not copy that same design to this walreceiver >> timeout. If there's two different timeouts like that, it's even worse, >> because it's easy to confuse the two.
> I agree, but also note that wal_receiver_status_interval serves > another user-visible purpose as well. By above do you mean to say that wal_receiver_status_interval is used for reply of data sent by server to indicate till what point receiver has flushed data or something else? 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
