On 2014-02-22 09:08:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > The danger is rather that *no* keepalive is sent (with requestReply = > > true triggering a reply by the client) by the walsender. Try to run > > pg_receivexlog against a busy server with a low walsender timeout. Since > > we'll never get to sending a keepalive we'll not trigger a reply by the > > receiver. Now > > Looking at code of pg_receivexlog in function HandleCopyStream(), > it seems that it can only happen if user has not configured > --status-interval in pg_receivexlog. Code referred is as below:
The interval interval is configured independently from the primary and pg_receivexlog doesn't tune it automatically to the one configured for the walsender. > Even if this is not happening due to some reason, shouldn't this be > anyway the responsibility of pg_receivexlog to send the status from time > to time rather than sending when server asked for it? It does. At it's own interval. I don't see what's to discuss here, sorry. There's really barely any cost to doing the keepalive correctly, otherwise it'd be problematic in the half dozen cases where *we* do send it. The keepalive mechanism doesn't work in one edgecase. So, let's fix it, and not discuss why we think the entire mechanism might be useless. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
