| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(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: | 2010-05-06 18:47:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4BE30EAE.6050207@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Now that I've realized what the real problem is with max_standby_delay
> (namely, that inactivity on the master can use up the delay), I think
> we should do what Tom originally suggested here. It's not as good as
> a really working max_standby_delay, but we're not going to have that
> for 9.0, and it's clearly better than a boolean.
I guess I'm not clear on how what Tom proposed is fundamentally
different from max_standby_delay = -1. If there's enough concurrent
queries, recovery would never catch up.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-06 18:59:07 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-05-06 17:40:25 | Re: SQLSTATE for Hot Standby cancellation |