Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Date: 2010-05-05 16:30:47
Message-ID: 4BE19D37.4040305@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:
> Does my proposal (upthread) to limit this by quantity of WAL rather
> than time have any legs, or is that impractical and/or otherwise poor?

That would certainly be easier to implement sanely than a time-based
quantity. One problem is that we don't know how much unapplied WAL there
is, when you're not using streaming replication. And I'm not sure how
useful that is to users - it's very hard to estimate what to set it to.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-05-05 17:41:31 Upcoming back-branch updates
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-05-05 16:18:30 Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful