On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:28:55PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:51 PM John Naylor <john.nay...@enterprisedb.com> > wrote: >> It is strange, now that I think about it. My thinking was that the >> former wording of "replication timeout" was a less literal >> reference to the replication_timeout parameter, so I did the same >> for wal_sender_timeout. A quick look shows we are not consistent >> in the documentation as far as walsender vs. WAL sender. For the >> purpose of the patch I agree it should be consistent within a >> single message. Maybe the parameter should be spelled exactly as >> is, with underscores? > > I'm ok with that. But there seems no other timeout messages using > the parameter name.
Could it be that nothing needs to change here because this refers to timeouts with the replication protocol? The current state of things on HEAD does not sound completely incorrect to me either. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
