> So I think the primary solution currently is to raise max_standby_age.
> However there is a concern with max_standby_age. If you set it to,
> say, 300s. Then run a 300s query on the slave which causes the slave
> to fall 299s behind. Now you start a new query on the slave -- it gets
> a snapshot based on the point in time that the slave is currently at.
> If it hits a conflict it will only have 1s to finish before the
> conflict causes the query to be cancelled.
Completely aside from that, how many users are going to be happy with a
slave server which is constantly 5 minutes behind?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-03-01 19:25:00|
|Subject: Re: Make plpgsql throw error for SELECT ... INTO rowtypevar , ... ?|
|Previous:||From: Steve Crawford||Date: 2010-03-01 18:51:51|
|Subject: Re: Anyone know if Alvaro is OK?|