Re: hot_standby_feedback and max_standby_archive_delay

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: 2014-04-17 14:53:34
Message-ID: 20140417145334.GC7443@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:51:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.

Patch applied.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Tiikkaja 2014-04-18 12:12:37 Re: hot_standby_feedback and max_standby_archive_delay
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2014-04-16 23:15:25 Re: category of min_recovery_apply_delay