| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: hot_standby_feedback and max_standby_archive_delay |
| Date: | 2014-04-16 18:51:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20140416185115.GI7443@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 01:08:44AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Myself and others found this statement in the documentation about $SUBJECT
> > very confusing: "max_standby_archive_delay must be kept large in this case,
> > because delayed WAL files might already contain entries that conflict with
> > the desired standby queries.". After a chat with Andres I've tried to make
> > it clearer what said statement tries to convey.
> >
> > Did I succeed?
>
> Don't we need to increase also max_standby_streaming_delay
> in the case that you mentioned in the patch? When the standby
> successfully reconnects to the master, lots of WAL files would
> be streamed and they might already have WAL entries that
> conflict with standby queries. No?
I have developed the attached doc patch to improve the wording on this
topic.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| streaming.diff | text/x-diff | 1.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-04-16 23:15:25 | Re: category of min_recovery_apply_delay |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-04-16 15:25:08 | Re: documentation: json processing table pasto |