On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Petr Jelinek <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I am not quite sure adding more GUCs is all that great option. When > writing the patches I was wondering if we should perhaps rename the > wal_receiver_timeout and wal_retrieve_retry_interval to something that > makes more sense for both physical and logical replication though.
It seems to me that you should really have a different GUC, wal_retrieve_retry_interval has been designed to work in the startup process, and I think that it should still only behave as originally designed. And at some point I think that it would make as well sense to be able to make this parameter settable at worker-level. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
