Re: recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value
Date: 2015-01-05 19:44:11
Message-ID: CA+TgmoatyRRAqwSU_X5E6+DhA9Zp1MFc2mUB7YS2BXKXsF1FuQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-01-05 19:47:24 Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2015-01-05 19:32:56 Re: NODE