Re: Replication server timeout patch
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-03-31T02:46:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center