On Monday, November 12, 2012 8:23 PM Fujii Masao wrote: On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote: > On Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:42 PM Fujii Masao wrote: >> 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
>>> 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. > >> Yes, its useful, but for walsender the main problem is that it uses blocking >> send call to send the data. >> I have tried using tcp_keepalive settings, but the send call doesn't comeout >> incase of network break. >> The only way I could get it out is: >> change in the corresponding file /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_retries2 by using >> the command > echo "8" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_retries2 >> As per recommendation, its value should be at-least 8 (equivalent to 100 >> sec) > >> Do you have any idea, how it can be achieved? > What about using pq_putmessage_noblock()? I will try this, but do you know why at first place in code the blocking mode is used to send files? I am asking as I am little scared that it should not break any design which was initially thought of while making send of files as blocking. 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
