Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay

Simon Riggs wrote:
> WALSender sleeps even when it might have more WAL to send, it doesn't
> check it just unconditionally sleeps. At least WALReceiver loops until
> it has no more to receive. I just can't imagine why that's useful
> behaviour.

Good catch. That should be fixed.

I also note that walsender doesn't respond to signals, while it's
sending a large batch. That's analogous to the issue that was addressed
recently in the archiver process.

-- 
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com