On 07.12.2010 05:51, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Fair enough. How about increasing the default to 10 seconds?
Since bgwriter has already using 10s as a nap time if there is no
configured activity, I think that 10s is non-nonsense default value.
What
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Maybe we should have a single tunable for processes that just sleep
> waiting for events or postmaster death. For example pgstats has a
> hardcoded 2 seconds, and the archiver process has a hardcoded value too
> AFAICS.
That would make sense once we get to the point wher
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Fair enough. How about increasing the default to 10 seconds?
>> Since bgwriter has already using 10s as a nap time if there is no
>> configured activity, I think that 10s is non-nonsense default value.
>
> What do we get out of making this non
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Fujii Masao writes:
>>> One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to
>>> detect the unexpected death of postmaster (by calling PostmasterIsAlive()).
>>> This is OK for
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao writes:
>> One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to
>> detect the unexpected death of postmaster (by calling PostmasterIsAlive()).
>> This is OK for me. But does anyone want to specify the delay to detect
>>
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun dic 06 23:49:52 -0300 2010:
> Fujii Masao writes:
> > One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to
> > detect the unexpected death of postmaster (by calling PostmasterIsAlive()).
> > This is OK for me. But does anyone want to specify t
Fujii Masao writes:
> One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to
> detect the unexpected death of postmaster (by calling PostmasterIsAlive()).
> This is OK for me. But does anyone want to specify the delay to detect
> that within a short time?
Oh. Hm. I'm hesitant to re
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao writes:
>> Walsender doesn't need the periodic wakeups anymore, thanks to
>> the latch feature. So wal_sender_delay is basically useless now.
>> How about dropping wal_sender_delay or increasing the default
>> value?
>
> If we don't n
Fujii Masao writes:
> Walsender doesn't need the periodic wakeups anymore, thanks to
> the latch feature. So wal_sender_delay is basically useless now.
> How about dropping wal_sender_delay or increasing the default
> value?
If we don't need it, we should remove it.
regar
Hi,
Walsender doesn't need the periodic wakeups anymore, thanks to
the latch feature. So wal_sender_delay is basically useless now.
How about dropping wal_sender_delay or increasing the default
value?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Ce
10 matches
Mail list logo
