On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote: > To define the behavior correctly, according to me there are 2 options now: > > Approach-1 : > Document that both(sender and receiver) the timeout parameters should be > greater than wal_receiver_status_interval. > If both are greater, then I think it might never timeout due to Idle.
In this approach, keepalive messages are sent each wal_receiver_status_interval? > Approach-2 : > Provide a variable wal_send_status_interval, such that if this is 0, then > the current behavior would prevail and if its non-zero then KeepAlive > message would be send maximum after that time. > The modified code of WALSendLoop will be as follows: <snip> > Which way you think is better or you have any other idea to handle. I think #2 is better because it's more intuitive to a user. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
