Mon, 5 Jan 2015 17:16:43 +0900 от Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Alexey Vasiliev <leopard...@inbox.ru> wrote: > > Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:39:33 +0900 от Michael Paquier > > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>: > > As I understand now = (pg_time_t) time(NULL); return time in seconds, what > > is why I multiply value to 1000 to compare with > > restore_command_retry_interval in milliseconds. > This way of doing is incorrect, you would get a wait time of 1s even > for retries lower than 1s. In order to get the feature working > correctly and to get a comparison granularity sufficient, you need to > use TimetampTz for the tracking of the current and last failure time > and to use the APIs from TimestampTz for difference calculations. > > > I am not sure about small retry interval of time, in my cases I need > > interval bigger 5 seconds (20-40 seconds). Right now I limiting this value > > be bigger 100 milliseconds. > Other people may disagree here, but I don't see any reason to put > restrictions to this interval of time. > > Attached is a patch fixing the feature to use TimestampTz, updating as > well the docs and recovery.conf.sample which was incorrect, on top of > other things I noticed here and there. > > Alexey, does this new patch look fine for you? > -- > Michael > >
Hello. Thanks for help. Yes, new patch look fine! -- Alexey Vasiliev -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
