| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Date: | 2010-05-06 00:36:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1997.1273106197@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> The existing behavior is probably not optimal, but I'm not seeing what
>> benefit we get out of neutering it.
> We get to design it right, or maybe not need it at all in 9.1.
Yeah. The good thing about a boolean is that it covers the two
noncontroversial cases (no-wait and wait forever), and doesn't lock
us into supporting cases that we don't really know how to do well
yet.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2010-05-06 00:51:17 | construct_array() use with PQexec with binary data |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-05-06 00:29:52 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |