On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 14:08 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 20:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > Yes, it does. And I know you're thinking along those lines because we > > are concurrently discussing how to handle re-connection after updates. > > With my State Machine proposal, we could only apply max_standby_delay if > in sync state, and cancel query unconditionally otherwise. > > > The alternative is this: after being disconnected for 15 minutes we > > reconnect. For the next X minutes the standby will be almost unusable > > for queries while we catch up again. > > That's it. And it could be the cause of another GUC, do we want to give > priority to catching-up to get back in sync, or to running queries. That > would affect to when we apply max_standby_delay, and when set to prefer > running queries it'd apply in any state as soon as we accept connections.
Agreed. I'm wondering if it wouldn't just be easier to put in a plugin for recovery conflict handling, so the user can decide what to do themselves. That seems like a better plan than chewing through these issues now. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
