| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Date: | 2010-05-09 16:52:37 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikghvbmc6peLh5YQK1ByJNIRb1a2CRNMVBRKnAV@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> The use cases are covered as best they can be without better support from
>> expected future SR features like heartbeats and XID loopback.
>
> For what it's worth I think deferring these extra complications is a
> very useful exercise. I would like to see a system that doesn't depend
> on them for basic functionality. In particular I would like to see a
> system that can be useful using purely WAL log shipping without
> streaming replication at all.
>
> I'm a bit unclear how the boolean proposal would solve things though.
> Surely if you set the boolean to recovery-wins then when using
> streaming replication with any non-idle master virtually every query
> would be cancelled immediately as every HOT cleanup would cause a
> snapshot conflict with even short-lived queires in the slave.
It sounds to me like what we need here is some testing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-09 18:52:59 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-05-09 16:47:51 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |