Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay
Date: 2010-06-28 07:17:48
Message-ID: 1277709468.25074.63629.camel@ebony (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 21:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Yes, I'll get with it ...
> > Any update on this?
> Sorry, I've been a bit distracted by other responsibilities (libtiff
> security issues for Red Hat, if you must know).  I'll get on it shortly.

I don't think the PostgreSQL project should wait any longer on this. If
it does we risk loss of quality in final release, assuming no slippage.

>From here, I will rework my patch of 31 May to
* use arrival time on standby as base for max_standby_delay
* make delay apply to both streaming and file cases
* min_standby_grace_period - min grace on every query, default 0

Decision time, so thoughts please?

 Simon Riggs 

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thom BrownDate: 2010-06-28 08:40:12
Subject: Re: beta3 & the open items list
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2010-06-28 05:03:23
Subject: Re: Why are these modules built without respecting my LDFLAGS?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group