| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Date: | 2010-05-06 07:34:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1273131269.12659.8.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 00:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> That just doesn't sound that bad to me, especially since the proposed
> alternative is:
>
> - Queries will get cancelled like crazy, period.
>
> Or else:
>
> - Replication can fall infinitely far behind and you can write a
> tedious and error-prone script to try to prevent it if you like.
>
> I think THAT is going to tarnish our reputation.
Yes, that will.
There is no consensus to remove max_standby_delay.
It could be improved with minor adjustments and it makes more sense to
allow a few of those, treating them as bugs.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikhil Sontakke | 2010-05-06 07:47:46 | Re: possible memory leak with SRFs |
| Previous Message | Rob Wultsch | 2010-05-06 06:15:53 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |