Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 13:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> >> Comments?
>
> > I'm not really a huge fan of adding another GUC, to be honest. I'm more
> > inclined to say we treat 'max_archive_delay' as '0', and turn
> > max_streaming_delay into what you've described. If we fall back so far
> > that we have to go back to reading WALs, then we need to hurry up and
> > catch-up and damn the torpedos.
>
> If I thought that 0 were a generally acceptable value, I'd still be
> pushing the "simplify it to a boolean" agenda ;-). The problem is that
> that will sometimes kill standby queries even when they are quite short
> and doing nothing objectionable.

OK, now I understand. I was just thinking the same as Stephen, but now I
agree we need a second parameter.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com