On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote: > 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?
Are you planning to introduce the timeout mechanism in pg_basebackup main process? Or background process? It's useful to implement both. BTW, IIRC the walsender has no timeout mechanism during sending backup data to pg_basebackup. So it's also useful to implement the timeout mechanism for the walsender during backup. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers