Re: Hot Standby (v9d)

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:27 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 18:55 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:

> Agreed. As explained when I published that patch it is deliberately
> severe to allow testing of conflict resolution and feedback on it.
>
> > I still *strongly* feel the default has to be the
> > non-destructive conservative -1.
>
> I don't. Primarily, we must support high availability. It is much better
> if we get people saying "I get my queries cancelled" and we say RTFM and
> change parameter X, than if people say "my failover was 12 hours behind
> when I needed it to be 10 seconds behind and I lost a $1 million because
> of downtime of Postgres" and we say RTFM and change parameter X.

If the person was stupid enough to configure it for such as thing they
deserve to the lose the money. Not to mention we have already lost them
as a user because they will blame postgresql regardless of reality as
evidenced by their inability to RTFM (or have a vendor that RTFMs) in
the first place.

I got to vote with Greg on this one.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997