On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I think it IS a Postgres precept that interrupts should get a > timely response. You don't have to agree, but I think that's > important.
Well, yes, but the fact of the matter is that it is taking high single digit numbers of seconds to get a response at times, so I don't think that there is any reasonable expectation that that be almost instantaneous. I don't want to make that worse, but then it might be worth it in order to ameliorate a particular pain point for users. >> There is a setting called zero_damaged_pages, and enabling it causes >> data loss. I've seen cases where it was enabled within postgresql.conf >> for years. > > That is both true and bad, but it is not a reason to do more bad things. I don't think it's bad. I think that we shouldn't be paternalistic towards our users. If anyone enables a setting like zero_damaged_pages (or, say, wal_write_throttle) within their postgresql.conf indefinitely for no good reason, then they're incompetent. End of story. Would you feel better about it if the setting had a time-out? Say, the user had to explicitly re-enable it after one hour at the most? -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
