On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote: > How about following: > 1. replication_client_timeout -- shouldn't it be client as new configuration > is for wal receiver > 2. replication_standby_timeout
ISTM that the client and the standby are the same thing. > If we introduce a new parameter for wal receiver, wouldn't > replication_timeout be confusing for user? Maybe. I actually don't think that I understand what problem we're trying to solve here. If the connection between the master and the standby is lost, shouldn't the standby realize that it's no longer receiving keepalives from the master and terminate the connection? I thought I had tested this at some point and it was working, so either it's subsequently gotten broken again or the scenario you're talking about is different in some way that I don't currently understand. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
