| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |
| Date: | 2009-01-28 20:58:22 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070901281258k5b9b29cas5d38f2a245d20968@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> I don't. Primarily, we must support high availability. It is much better
>> if we get people saying "I get my queries cancelled" and we say RTFM and
>> change parameter X, than if people say "my failover was 12 hours behind
>> when I needed it to be 10 seconds behind and I lost a $1 million because
>> of downtime of Postgres" and we say RTFM and change parameter X.
>
> If the person was stupid enough to configure it for such as thing they
> deserve to the lose the money. Not to mention we have already lost them
> as a user because they will blame postgresql regardless of reality as
> evidenced by their inability to RTFM (or have a vendor that RTFMs) in
> the first place.
>
> I got to vote with Greg on this one.
I vote with Simon. The thing is that if you get some queries
cancelled, you'll realize you have a problem. Now you have several
options for what to do to fix it. Having your failover be 12 hours
behind (or 12 months behind) is something that it would be much easier
to not realize.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-01-28 21:09:46 | Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-28 20:58:17 | Re: How to get SE-PostgreSQL acceptable |