Re: wal_sender_delay is still required?

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Tom Lane  wrote:
> Fujii Masao  writes:
>> Walsender doesn't need the periodic wakeups anymore, thanks to
>> the latch feature. So wal_sender_delay is basically useless now.
>> How about dropping wal_sender_delay or increasing the default
>> value?
>
> If we don't need it, we should remove it.

The attached patch removes wal_sender_delay and uses hard-coded
10 seconds instead of wal_sender_delay as the delay between activity
rounds for walsender.

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?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center