| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value |
| Date: | 2015-01-05 20:38:01 |
| Message-ID: | 54AAF629.5050200@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/01/15 20:44, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Of course, if recovery_min_apply_delay were a proper GUC, we'd just
>> configure it with a minimum value of zero and be done :-(
>
> Amen. We should *really* convert all of the recovery.conf parameters
> to be GUCs.
>
Well, there is an ongoing effort on that and I think the patch is very
close to the state where committer should take a look IMHO, I have only
couple of gripes with it now and one of them needs opinions of others
anyway.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-01-05 20:56:16 | Re: SSL information view |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-01-05 20:23:07 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |