On Monday, October 01, 2012 8:36 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>> Hmm, I think we need to step back a bit. I've never liked the way
>> replication_timeout works, where it's the user's responsibility to set
>> wal_receiver_status_interval < replication_timeout. It's not very
>> user-friendly. I'd rather not copy that same design to this walreceiver
>> timeout. If there's two different timeouts like that, it's even worse,
>> because it's easy to confuse the two.
> I agree, but also note that wal_receiver_status_interval serves
> another user-visible purpose as well.
By above do you mean to say that wal_receiver_status_interval is used for reply of data sent by server to indicate till
whatpoint receiver has flushed data or something else?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.