2012/11/18 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2012-11-18 12:44:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm inclined to propose limiting both of these to the equivalent of 15 > >> days. Alternatively we could try to rejigger things to prevent asking > >> WaitLatch to wait for more than 2^31 msec, but it's not real clear to > >> me that it's worth the trouble. > > > In general I have no problem imposing lower limits, but it seems to be a > > ugly to get errors for an invalid configuration file after a minor > > version upgrade. While the wal_sender_timeout isn't really likely to be > > that high I don't think the log_rotation_age one is unlikely to be set > > to something in the month range, thats not an unreasonable value. > > Well, we have two reports of people trying such values (assuming that > #7545 actually is the same thing), and it didn't work for either of > them. I don't think it's a problem to restrict the value to something > that will work rather than fail. > > If you're worried that there's somebody out there using 20 or 21 days > as log_rotation_age, I guess we could limit to INT_MAX/1000 seconds or > something just less than that. >
Some experiments are necessary on my side ? -- Regards System and web developer. <http://amkmobile.com>
