Re: Replication server timeout patch
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-03-31T07:20:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 31.03.2011 05:46, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Fujii Masao<masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >>> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>> On 30.03.2011 10:58, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >>>>> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>>> + A value of zero means wait forever. This parameter can only be >>>>> set in >>>>> >>>>> The first sentence sounds misleading. Even if you set the parameter to >>>>> zero, >>>>> replication connections can be terminated because of keepalive or socket >>>>> error. >>>> >>>> Hmm, should I change it back to "A value of zero disables the timeout" ? Any >>>> better suggestions? >>> >>> I like that. But I appreciate if anyone suggests the better. >> >> Maybe sticking the word "mechanism" in there would be a bit better. >> "A value of zero disables the timeout mechanism"? > > I'm OK with that. Or, what about "A value of zero turns this off" which is > used in statement_timeout for the sake of consistency? Committed Robert's suggestion. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com