On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 13:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> Comments? > > > I'm not really a huge fan of adding another GUC, to be honest. I'm more > > inclined to say we treat 'max_archive_delay' as '0', and turn > > max_streaming_delay into what you've described. If we fall back so far > > that we have to go back to reading WALs, then we need to hurry up and > > catch-up and damn the torpedos. > > If I thought that 0 were a generally acceptable value, I'd still be > pushing the "simplify it to a boolean" agenda ;-). The problem is that > that will sometimes kill standby queries even when they are quite short > and doing nothing objectionable.
OK, now I understand. I was just thinking the same as Stephen, but now I agree we need a second parameter. -- 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
