On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > My question on the list was merely to make sure there are no > side-effects when increasing this delay above what seems to be > considered safe limits. However, I still wonder why this parameter is > capped to 10s and whether this restriction could be lifted in future > postgresql versions? I don't think there's any practical reason, other than that it was assumed that increasing it further was not useful. There is perhaps a tendency to set GUC limits as high as seems reasonable without consider niche use-cases such as yours. If you want to hack it to go higher it should be fine, provided that WalWriterDelay * HIBERNATE_FACTOR cannot ever overflow a 32-bit signed integer. But since those are milliseconds and not microseconds, it seems pretty safe. This applies to 9.2+ only. I didn't check what things look like back when the delay was passed to pg_usleep(), which was the case in 9.1. -- Regards, Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
