| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Date: | 2010-05-06 10:48:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1273142915.12659.178.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 11:36 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
> If there was an additional SQL-callable function that returned the backends the recovery process is currently waiting for, plus one that reported that last timestamp seen in the WAL, than all those different cancellation policies could be implemented as daemons that monitor recovery and kill backends as needed, no?
>
> That would allow people to experiment with different cancellation policies, and maybe shed some light on what the useful policies are in practice.
It would be easier to implement a conflict resolution plugin that is
called when a conflict occurs, allowing users to have a customisable
mechanism. Again, I have no objection to that proposal.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2010-05-06 11:46:51 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2010-05-06 10:37:42 | Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs |