Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Date: 2010-05-04 22:53:33
Message-ID: 21996.1273013613@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Given your clarification on the whole set of behaviors, I'm highly
> dubious about the idea of implementing Tom's proposal when we're already
> Beta 1. It seems like a 9.1 thing.

I think you missed the point: "do nothing" is not a viable option.
I was proposing something that seemed simple enough to be safe to
drop into 9.0 at this point. I'm less convinced that what Simon
is proposing is safe enough.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2010-05-04 23:06:00 Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-05-04 22:34:27 Re: including PID or backend ID in relpath of temp rels