| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, 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: | 2010-05-10 11:55:32 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimo0PCuQa_L5ML-OHXr44F_09KQglGRqTgtqWnZ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, I could live with that.
>
> A problem with using the name "max_standby_delay" for Tom's suggestion
> is that it sounds like a hard limit, which it isn't. But if we name it
> something like:
>
> # -1 = no timeout
> # 0 = kill conflicting queries immediately
> # > 0 wait for N seconds, then kill query
> standby_conflict_timeout = -1
>
> it's more clear that the setting is a timeout for each *conflict*, and
> it's less surprising that the standby can fall indefinitely behind in
> the worst case. If we name the setting along those lines, I could live
> with that.
Yeah, if we do it that way, +1 for changing the name, and your
suggestion seems good.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-10 11:57:23 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-10 11:53:52 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |