On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 12:11 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > At Wed, 10 Aug 2022 17:33:00 -0300, "Euler Taveira" <eu...@eulerto.com> wrote > in > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022, at 9:39 AM, osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com wrote: > > > Minor review comments for v6. > > Thanks for your review. I'm attaching v7. > > Using interval is not standard as this kind of parameters but it seems > convenient. On the other hand, it's not great that the unit month > introduces some subtle ambiguity. This patch translates a month to 30 > days but I'm not sure it's the right thing to do. Perhaps we shouldn't > allow the units upper than days. >
Agreed. Isn't the same thing already apply to recovery_min_apply_delay for which the maximum unit seems to be in days? If so, there is no reason to do something different here? > apply_delay() chokes the message-receiving path so that a not-so-long > delay can cause a replication timeout to fire. I think we should > process walsender pings even while delaying. Needing to make > replication timeout longer than apply delay is not great, I think. > Again, I think for this case also the behavior should be similar to how we handle recovery_min_apply_delay. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
