On 2012-11-18 13:18:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2012-11-18 12:44:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm inclined to propose limiting both of these to the equivalent of 15 > >> days. Alternatively we could try to rejigger things to prevent asking > >> WaitLatch to wait for more than 2^31 msec, but it's not real clear to > >> me that it's worth the trouble. > > > In general I have no problem imposing lower limits, but it seems to be a > > ugly to get errors for an invalid configuration file after a minor > > version upgrade. While the wal_sender_timeout isn't really likely to be > > that high I don't think the log_rotation_age one is unlikely to be set > > to something in the month range, thats not an unreasonable value. > > Well, we have two reports of people trying such values (assuming that > #7545 actually is the same thing), and it didn't work for either of > them. I don't think it's a problem to restrict the value to something > that will work rather than fail.
Thats a good point. But #7545 was on OSX so its not really that much evidence a larger value doesn't work on non-bsdish systems. In fact, a setting of 32 days seems not to cause any immediate problems here on linux, even when choosing the timeout in a way it results in a negative timeout value for poll. Not sure what its waiting for, but it doesn't crash. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
