| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items |
| Date: | 2008-12-19 20:17:44 |
| Message-ID: | 873agjly1j.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Increasing the waiting time increases the failover time and thus
> decreases the value of the standby as an HA system. Others value high
> availability higher than you and so we had agreed to provide an option
> to allow the max waiting time to be set.
Sure, it's a nice option to have. But I think the default should be to pause
WAL replay.
The question I had was whether your solution for btree pointers marked dead
and later dropped from the index works when the user hasn't configured a
timeout and doesn't want standby queries killed.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-12-19 20:19:01 | Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-12-19 20:09:40 | Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items |