Обсуждение: documentation for wal_retrieve_retry_interval
There is no documentation what use case the new (in 9.5) parameter wal_retrieve_retry_interval is for. The commit message (5d2b45e3f78a85639f30431181c06d4c3221c5a1) alludes to something, but even that is not clear, and obviously in the wrong place. Could we come up with something more to put into the documentation?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > There is no documentation what use case the new (in 9.5) parameter > wal_retrieve_retry_interval is for. The commit message > (5d2b45e3f78a85639f30431181c06d4c3221c5a1) alludes to something, but > even that is not clear, and obviously in the wrong place. Could we come > up with something more to put into the documentation? Yeah, we should highlight the facts that recovery can be made more responsive when attempting to detect WAL. In archive recovery, this can be translated by the fact that new WAL segments can be detected more quickly and make recovery more responsive. The opposite is actually what leaded to the patch: requirement was to limit the number of times archive host was requested with a server that had low activity, the archive host being on AWS. An idea would be something like the patch attached. Thoughts? -- Michael
Вложения
On 11/19/15 11:26 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >> There is no documentation what use case the new (in 9.5) parameter >> wal_retrieve_retry_interval is for. The commit message >> (5d2b45e3f78a85639f30431181c06d4c3221c5a1) alludes to something, but >> even that is not clear, and obviously in the wrong place. Could we come >> up with something more to put into the documentation? > > Yeah, we should highlight the facts that recovery can be made more > responsive when attempting to detect WAL. In archive recovery, this > can be translated by the fact that new WAL segments can be detected > more quickly and make recovery more responsive. The opposite is > actually what leaded to the patch: requirement was to limit the number > of times archive host was requested with a server that had low > activity, the archive host being on AWS. > > An idea would be something like the patch attached. Thoughts? Sounds good. Thanks!
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Sounds good. Thanks! Great. Thanks for considering it! -- Michael