On 18/04/17 16:24, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 4/16/17 22:40, Masahiko Sawada wrote: >> Attached two patches add new GUCs apply_worker_timeout and >> apply_worker_launch_interval which are used instead of >> wal_receiver_timeout and wal_retrieve_retry_timeout. These new >> parameters are not settable at worker-level so far. > > Under what circumstances are these needed? Does anyone ever set these? >
Personally I don't see need for apply_worker_timeout, no idea why that can't use wal_receiver_timeout, the mechanics are exactly same, and it's IMHO only needed because default tcp keepalive settings are usually too generous. As for apply_worker_launch_interval, I think we want different name so that it can be used for tablesync rate limiting as well. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
