Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 13:13 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you could speak to the specific user
> > experience difference that you think there would be from this change?
>
> The difference is really to do with the weight you give to two different
> considerations
>
> * avoid query cancellations
> * avoid having recovery fall behind, so that failover time is minimised
>
> Some people recognise the trade-offs and are planning multiple standby
> servers dedicated to different roles/objectives.
I understand Simon's point that the two behaviors have different
benefits. However, I believe few users will be able to understand when
to use which.
As I remember, 9.0 has two behaviors:
o master delays vacuum cleanup
o slave delays WAL application
and in 9.1 we will be adding:
o slave communicates snapshots to master
How would this figure into what we ultimately want in 9.1?
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
