| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Date: | 2010-05-06 12:42:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4BE2B94C.5080603@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yeb Havinga wrote:
> Rob Wultsch wrote:
>> I can not imagine setting this value to anything other than a bool and
>> most of the time that bool would be -1.
> That's funny because when I was reading this thread, I was thinking
> the exact opposite: having max_standby_delay always set to 0 so I know
> the standby server is as up-to-date as possible.
If you ask one person about this, you'll discover they only consider one
behavior here sane, and any other setting is crazy. Ask five people,
and you'll likely find someone who believes the complete opposite. Ask
ten and carefully work out the trade-offs they're willing to make given
the fundamental limitations of replication, and you'll arrive at the
range of behaviors available right now, plus some more that haven't been
built yet. There are a lot of different types of database applications
out there, each with their own reliability and speed requirements to
balance.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-05-06 13:04:13 | Re: pg_migrator to /contrib in a later 9.0 beta |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-05-06 12:37:06 | Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH versus rpath |