| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |
| Date: | 2009-01-28 19:56:18 |
| Message-ID: | 21473.1233172578@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:27 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 18:55 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> I still *strongly* feel the default has to be the
>>> non-destructive conservative -1.
>>
>> I don't. Primarily, we must support high availability. It is much better
>> if we get people saying "I get my queries cancelled" and we say RTFM and
>> change parameter X, than if people say "my failover was 12 hours behind
>> when I needed it to be 10 seconds behind and I lost a $1 million because
>> of downtime of Postgres" and we say RTFM and change parameter X.
> If the person was stupid enough to configure it for such as thing they
> deserve to the lose the money.
Well, those unexpectedly cancelled queries could have represented
critical functionality too. I think this argument calls the entire
approach into question. If there is no safe setting for the parameter
then we need to find a way to not have the parameter.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-01-28 20:03:46 | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-28 19:49:17 | Re: Hot Standby (v9d) |