On 2012-11-18 15:21:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I think at least wal_sender_timeout and wal_receiver_timeout are also
> > problematic.
>
> I looked at those and didn't see a problem --- what are you worried
> about exactly?
Forget it, too hungry to read the code properl
Andres Freund writes:
> I think at least wal_sender_timeout and wal_receiver_timeout are also
> problematic.
I looked at those and didn't see a problem --- what are you worried
about exactly?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postg
On 2012-11-18 14:57:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The discussion of bug #7670 showed that what's happening there is that
> if you specify a log_rotation_age of more than 25 days (2^31 msec),
> WaitLatch will sometimes be passed a timeout of more than 2^31 msec,
> leading to unportable behavior. At l
The discussion of bug #7670 showed that what's happening there is that
if you specify a log_rotation_age of more than 25 days (2^31 msec),
WaitLatch will sometimes be passed a timeout of more than 2^31 msec,
leading to unportable behavior. At least some kernels will return
EINVAL for that, and it'
