From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay |
Date: | 2010-01-16 13:08:21 |
Message-ID: | m2zl4enqnu.fsf@hi-media.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 20:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Yes, it does. And I know you're thinking along those lines because we
> are concurrently discussing how to handle re-connection after updates.
With my State Machine proposal, we could only apply max_standby_delay if
in sync state, and cancel query unconditionally otherwise.
> The alternative is this: after being disconnected for 15 minutes we
> reconnect. For the next X minutes the standby will be almost unusable
> for queries while we catch up again.
That's it. And it could be the cause of another GUC, do we want to give
priority to catching-up to get back in sync, or to running queries. That
would affect to when we apply max_standby_delay, and when set to prefer
running queries it'd apply in any state as soon as we accept connections.
Regards,
--
dim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-01-16 13:19:28 | Archive recovery crashes on win32 in HEAD - hot standby related? |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-01-16 12:55:12 | Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O |