AYahorau@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: >> I do not think anybody thinks this is a bug. Setting wal_sender_timeout >> too small is a configuration mistake. > Why is it a configuration mistake? This value is allowed to be set. There > is no any restriction about it. The fact that a parameter can be set does not mean that we guarantee that every possible value will work for everybody. As an example, if you configure work_mem to a few TB and then start getting OOM failures because your machine can't actually support that, it's not a bug that we let you set the value that high. The upper limit of what's usable is too variable and too hard to determine, so we don't even try; it's on you to choose a suitable setting for your situation. Similarly, the useful range of wal_sender_timeout is hard to predict and is likely to be quite different for different installations. We don't want to artificially constrain what people can use, so the range of allowed settings *ought* to include some values that are not practically useful in specific situations. Those values might be just the right ones for someone else. regards, tom lane
