On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes. I'd prefer avoid a hardcoded sleep and have something that relies
>> on lookups of pg_stat_replication though, because there is no way to
>> be sure that a sleep will ever be stable on heavily loaded machines,
>> like the machines I am specialized in maintaining :)
>> It kills a bit the purpose on having checks on pg_stat_replication as
>> the validation tests are based on that, still I think that we had
>> better base those checks on a loop that has a timeout, something like
>> that in a subroutine:
>> What do you think?
>
> Look good to me. +1.
And so here we go...
--
Michael