On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> > I think the concensus is to change this setting to a boolean. ?If you >> > don't want to do it, I am sure we can find someone who will. >> >> I still think we should revert to Tom's original proposal. > > And Tom's proposal was to do it on WAL slave arrival time? If we could > get agreement from everyone that that is the proper direction, fine, but > I am hearing things like plugins, and other complexity that makes it > seem we are not getting closer to an agreed solution, and without > agreement, the simplest approach seems to be just to remove the part we > can't agree upon. > > I think the big question is whether this issue is significant enough > that we should ignore our policy of no feature design during beta.
Tom's proposal was basically to define recovery_process_lock_timeout. The recovery process would wait X seconds for a lock, then kill whoever held it. It's not the greatest knob in the world for the reasons already pointed out, but I think it's still better than a boolean and will be useful to some users. And it's pretty simple. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
