Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

* Simon Riggs (simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> I guarantee that if that proposal goes in, people will complain about
> that also. Last minute behaviour changes are bad news. I don't object to
> adding something, just don't take anything away. It's not like the code
> for it is pages long or anything.

I have to disagree with this. If it goes into 9.0 this way then we're
signing up to support it for *years*. With something as fragile as the
existing setup (as outlined by Tom), that's probably not a good idea.
We've not signed up to support the existing behaviour at all yet-
alpha's aren't a guarentee of what we're going to release.

> The trade off is HA or queries and two modes make sense for user choice.

The option isn't being thrown out, it's just being made to depend on
something which is alot easier to measure while still being very useful
for the trade-off you're talking about. I don't really see a downside
to this, to be honest. Perhaps you could speak to the specific user
experience difference that you think there would be from this change?

+1 from me on Tom's proposal.

Thanks,

Stephen