On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> If someone wants to suggest that HS is useless if max_standby_delay >> supports only boolean values, I am ready to suggest we remove HS as well >> and head to 9.0 because that would suggest that HS itself is going to be >> useless. > > I think HS is going to be a lot less useful than many people think, at > least in 9.0. But I think ripping out max_standby_delay will make it > worse. > >> The code will not be thrown away; we will bring it back for 9.1. > > If that's the case, then taking it out makes no sense. > <mysql dba troll> I manage a bunch of different environments and I am pretty sure that in any of them if the db started seemingly randomly killing queries I would have application teams followed quickly by executives coming after me with torches and pitchforks.
I can not imagine setting this value to anything other than a bool and most of the time that bool would be -1. I would only be unleashing a kill storm in utter desperation and I would probably need to explain myself in detail after. Utter desperation means I am sure I am going to have to do a impactful failover at any moment and need a slave completely up to date NOW. It is good to have the option to automatically cancel queries, but I think it is a mistake to assume many people will use it. What I would really need for instrumentation is the ability to determine *easily* how much a slave is lagging in clock time. </mysql dba troll> -- Rob Wultsch wult...@gmail.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers