Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
> One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to
> detect the unexpected death of postmaster (by calling PostmasterIsAlive()).
> This is OK for me. But does anyone want to specify the delay to detect
> that within a short time?

Oh.  Hm.  I'm hesitant to remove the setting if there's still some
behavior that it would control.  Maybe we should just crank up the
default value instead.
        regards, tom lane