Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

Hi,

On Thursday 06 May 2010 07:35:49 Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I am afraid the current setting is tempting for users to enable, but
> >> will be so unpredictable that it will tarnish the repuation of HS and
> >> Postgres. We don't want to be thinking in 9 months, "Wow, we shouldn't
> >> have shipped that features. It is causing all kinds of problems." We
> >> have done that before (rarely), and it isn't a good feeling.
> >
> > I am not convinced it will be unpredictable. The only caveats that
> > I've seen so far are:
> >
> > - You need to run ntpd.
> > - Queries will get cancelled like crazy if you're not using steaming
> > replication.
>
> And also in situations where the master is idle for a while and then
> starts doing stuff. That's the most significant source of confusion,
> IMHO, I wouldn't mind the requirement of ntpd so much.
Personally I would much rather like to keep that configurability and manually
generate a record a second. Or possibly do something akin to
archive_timeout...

That may be not as important once there are less sources of conflict
resolutions - but thats something *definitely* not going to happen for 9.0...

Andres