Re: New trigger option of pg_standby

From: Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New trigger option of pg_standby
Date: 2009-03-25 15:48:14
Message-ID: 1d4e0c10903250848x4e067c86ue611c0c50f25e49d@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> I find it hard to imagine a use case for the existing default
> behavior.

I thought a bit about it and I think it can be useful when your
priority is the availability of the service and you don't consider a
data loss that important: even if you have a lot of WALs segments to
replay, you may want to have your service up immediately in case of a
major problem.

Keeping it is a good idea IMHO but I don't think it should be the default.

--
Guillaume

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Willis 2009-03-25 15:50:28 Re: Proper entry of polygon type data
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-03-25 15:15:50 Re: improving concurrent transactin commit rate