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

In response to

• Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay at 2010-01-15 23:09:13 from Simon Riggs

Responses

• Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay at 2010-01-16 16:22:57 from Simon Riggs

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Magnus Hagander	Date: 2010-01-16 13:19:28
	Subject: Archive recovery crashes on win32 in HEAD - hot standby related?
Previous:	From: Dimitri Fontaine	Date: 2010-01-16 12:55:12
	Subject: Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O