Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,<bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Date: 2010-05-09 11:40:27
Message-ID: 4BE658DB02000025000313E7@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> I think everyone agrees the current code is unusable, per Heikki's
> comment about a WAL file arriving after a period of no WAL
> activity

I don't.

I am curious to hear how many complaints we've had from alpha and
beta testers of HS regarding this issue. I know that if we used it
with our software, the issue would probably go unnoticed because of
our usage patterns and automatic query retry. A positive setting
would work as intended for us. I can think of pessimal usage
patterns, different software approaches, and/or goals for HS usage
which would conflict badly with a positive setting. Hopefully we
can document this area better than we've historically done with, for
example, fsync -- which has similar trade-offs, only with more dire
consequences for bad user choices.

-Kevin

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2010-05-09 11:59:50 Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2010-05-09 10:33:56 Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct