Re: why is max standby delay only 35 minutes?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>
Cc: postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why is max standby delay only 35 minutes?
Date: 2011-03-04 07:03:14
Message-ID: AANLkTi=hWw+iTxrkPU4aS6WK9iAyuO-p5HrkPnkJ4p+z@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 04:00, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net> wrote:
> I have a server where I wanted to do some reporting on a standby, and
> wanted to set the max standby delay to 1 hour. upon doing that, i get
> this in the logs:
>
> 2011-03-03 21:20:08 EST () [2656]: [2-1] user=,db=LOG:  received
> SIGHUP, reloading configuration files
> 2011-03-03 21:20:08 EST () [2656]: [3-1] user=,db=LOG:  3600000 is
> outside the valid range for parameter "max_standby_archive_delay" (-1
> .. 2147483)
>
> The error is clear enough, but is there some reason that the parameter
> is coded this way? istm people are much more likely to want to be able
> to set the precision in hours than in microseconds.
>
> OTOH, maybe it's a bug? The default resolution is in milliseconds, and
> you can't set it to anything less than that (afaict). I asked on irc
> and the consensus seemed to be that the internal representation is
> off, are we missing something?

See this thread here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-12/msg01517.php

Summary: should be fixed, but it needs to be verified that it works
across all possible codepaths. It's not an issue with just
max_standby_delay.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2011-03-04 07:36:42 Re: ALTER TABLE deadlock with concurrent INSERT
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2011-03-04 06:16:08 Re: Sync Rep v19