On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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.
I too was thinking the same as Stephen, but now I also agree we need a second parameter. I think the whole design Tom proposed seems good. -- 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
