On 4/18/17 12:00, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> As for apply_worker_launch_interval, I think we want different
> name so that it can be used for tablesync rate limiting as well.
But that's a mechanism we don't have yet, so maybe we should design that
when we get there?
--
Peter Eisentraut h
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 setta
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 circumsta
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> On 14/04/17 14:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Petr Jelinek
>> 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 t
On 14/04/17 14:30, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Petr Jelinek
> 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 t
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Petr Jelinek
wrote:
> On 14/04/17 12:57, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I noticed that the logical replication launcher uses
>> wal_retrieve_retry_interval as a interval of launching logical
>> replication worker process. This behavior is not documented and I
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Petr Jelinek
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 phys
On 14/04/17 12:57, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that the logical replication launcher uses
> wal_retrieve_retry_interval as a interval of launching logical
> replication worker process. This behavior is not documented and I
> guess this is no longer consistent with what its name mean
Hi,
I noticed that the logical replication launcher uses
wal_retrieve_retry_interval as a interval of launching logical
replication worker process. This behavior is not documented and I
guess this is no longer consistent with what its name means.
I think that we should either introduce a new GUC