ayaho...@ibagroup.eu writes:
>> I do not think anybody thinks this is a bug. Setting wal_sender_timeout
>> too small is a configuration mistake.
> Why is it a configuration mistake? This value is allowed to be set. There
> is no any restriction about it.
The fact that a parameter can be set do
Hello Everyone!
Sorry for being persistent.
> I do not think anybody thinks this is a bug. Setting wal_sender_timeout
> too small is a configuration mistake.
Why is it a configuration mistake? This value is allowed to be set. There
is no any restriction about it.
I would like to ask a questio
Hello Everyone!
> I do not think anybody thinks this is a bug. Setting
wal_sender_timeout
> too small is a configuration mistake.
I don't understand why it is a mistake. 1second is acceptable value for
wal_sender_timeout.
Moreover the behaviour contradicts with the official description for
wa
On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 10:03:16AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> ayaho...@ibagroup.eu writes:
>> Do you have any thoughts regarding this issue?
>
> I do not think anybody thinks this is a bug. Setting wal_sender_timeout
> too small is a configuration mistake.
Yeah. I don't see any bug here. Please
ayaho...@ibagroup.eu writes:
> Do you have any thoughts regarding this issue?
I do not think anybody thinks this is a bug. Setting wal_sender_timeout
too small is a configuration mistake.
regards, tom lane
Hello Everyone!
Do you have any thoughts regarding this issue?
Best regards,
Andrei Yahorau
From: Andrei Yahorau/IBA
To: pgsql-gene...@postgresql.org,
Date: 21/06/2019 11:14
Subject:Active connections are terminated because of small
wal_sender_timeout
Hello PostgreSQL
Hello PostgreSQL Community!
Not long ago I opened an issue regarding the problem about:
"terminating walsender process due to replication timeout" problem:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OF85C33E30.171C1C23-ON432583F9.003F5B16-432583F9.003FBAD7%40iba.by
Thanks Everyone for your comprehe
