Phil Sorber <p...@omniti.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:27:45PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> +1 for default timeout --- if this isn't like "ping" where you are
>>> expecting to run indefinitely, I can't see that it's a good idea for it
>>> to sit very long by default, in any circumstance.
>> FYI, the pg_ctl -w (wait) default is 60 seconds:
> Great. That is what I came to on my own as well. Figured that might be
> a sticking point, but as there is precedent, I'm happy with it.
I'm not sure that's a relevant precedent at all. What that number is
is the time that pg_ctl will wait around for the postmaster to start or
stop before reporting a problem --- and in either case, a significant
delay (multiple seconds) is not surprising, because of crash-recovery
work, shutdown checkpointing, etc. For pg_isready, you'd expect to get
a response more or less instantly, wouldn't you? Personally, I'd decide
that pg_isready is broken if it didn't give me an answer in a couple of
seconds, much less a minute.
What I had in mind was a default timeout of maybe 3 or 4 seconds...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
