On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > You are right that we are much more flexible about changing > administrative configuration parameters (like this one) than SQL. In the > past, we even renamed logging parameters to be more consistent, and I > think that proves the bar is quite low for GUC administrative parameter > change. :-) > > The concern about 'max_standby_delay' is that it controls a lot of new > code and affects the behavior of HS/SR in ways that might cause a poor > user experience, expecially for non-expert users.
I would like to propose that we do the following: 1) Replace max_standby_delay with a boolean as per heikki's suggestion 2) Add an explicitly experimental option like max_standby_delay or recovery_conflict_timeout which is only effective if you've chosen recovery_conflict="pause recovery" option and is explicitly documented as being scheduled to be replaced with a more complete system in future versions. My thinking is that when we do replace max_standby_delay we would keep the recovery_conflict parameter with the same semantics. It's just the additional experimental option which would change. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
