Re: [HACKERS] wal_sender_delay is still required?

2011-02-26 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 07.12.2010 05:51, Fujii Masao wrote: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Fair enough. How about increasing the default to 10 seconds? Since bgwriter has already using 10s as a nap time if there is no configured activity, I think that 10s is non-nonsense

[HACKERS] wal_sender_delay is still required?

2010-12-06 Thread Fujii Masao
Hi, Walsender doesn't need the periodic wakeups anymore, thanks to the latch feature. So wal_sender_delay is basically useless now. How about dropping wal_sender_delay or increasing the default value? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software

Re: [HACKERS] wal_sender_delay is still required?

2010-12-06 Thread Tom Lane
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: Walsender doesn't need the periodic wakeups anymore, thanks to the latch feature. So wal_sender_delay is basically useless now. How about dropping wal_sender_delay or increasing the default value? If we don't need it, we should remove it.

Re: [HACKERS] wal_sender_delay is still required?

2010-12-06 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: Walsender doesn't need the periodic wakeups anymore, thanks to the latch feature. So wal_sender_delay is basically useless now. How about dropping wal_sender_delay or increasing the

Re: [HACKERS] wal_sender_delay is still required?

2010-12-06 Thread Tom Lane
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to detect the unexpected death of postmaster (by calling PostmasterIsAlive()). This is OK for me. But does anyone want to specify the delay to detect that within a short time? Oh. Hm.

Re: [HACKERS] wal_sender_delay is still required?

2010-12-06 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun dic 06 23:49:52 -0300 2010: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to detect the unexpected death of postmaster (by calling PostmasterIsAlive()). This is OK for me. But does anyone

Re: [HACKERS] wal_sender_delay is still required?

2010-12-06 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to detect the unexpected death of postmaster (by calling PostmasterIsAlive()). This is OK for me. But does anyone want

Re: [HACKERS] wal_sender_delay is still required?

2010-12-06 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: One problem with the patch is that it takes longer (at most 10s) to detect the unexpected death of postmaster

Re: [HACKERS] wal_sender_delay is still required?

2010-12-06 Thread Fujii Masao
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Fair enough. How about increasing the default to 10 seconds? Since bgwriter has already using 10s as a nap time if there is no configured activity, I think that 10s is non-nonsense default value. What do we get out of

Re: [HACKERS] wal_sender_delay is still required?

2010-12-06 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: Maybe we should have a single tunable for processes that just sleep waiting for events or postmaster death. For example pgstats has a hardcoded 2 seconds, and the archiver process has a hardcoded value too AFAICS. That would make sense once