On Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:04 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 19.10.2012 14:42, Amit kapila wrote: > > On Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:49 PM Fujii Masao wrote: > >> Before implementing the timeout parameter, I think that it's better > to change > >> both pg_basebackup background process and pg_receivexlog so that they > >> send back the reply message immediately when they receive the > keepalive > >> message requesting the reply. Currently, they always ignore such > keepalive > >> message, so status interval parameter (-s) in them always must be set > to > >> the value less than replication timeout. We can avoid this > troublesome > >> parameter setting by introducing the same logic of walreceiver into > both > >> pg_basebackup background process and pg_receivexlog. > > > > Please find the patch attached to address the modification mentioned > by you (send immediate reply for keepalive). > > Both basebackup and pg_receivexlog uses the same function > ReceiveXLogStream, so single change for both will address the issue. > > Thanks, committed this one after shuffling it around the changes I > committed yesterday. I also updated the docs to not claim that -s option > is required to avoid timeout disconnects anymore.
Thank you. However I think still the issue will not be completely solved. pg_basebackup/pg_receivexlog can still take long time to detect network break as they don't have timeout concept. To do that I have sent one proposal which is mentioned at end of mail chain: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C3828 53BBED@szxeml509-mbs Do you think there is any need to introduce such mechanism in pg_basebackup/pg_receivexlog? 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
