Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that we should throw away all this logic and just
> have the slave cancel competing queries if the replay process waits
> more than max_standby_delay seconds to acquire a lock.  This is simple,
> understandable, and behaves the same whether we're reading live data or
> not.

Now that I've realized what the real problem is with max_standby_delay
(namely, that inactivity on the master can use up the delay), I think
we should do what Tom originally suggested here. It's not as good as
a really working max_standby_delay, but we're not going to have that
for 9.0, and it's clearly better than a boolean.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company