Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:30 AM, FabrÃzio de Royes Mello > <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Shouldn't we simply leave if recovery_min_apply_delay is lower 0, and not >> only equal to 0?
> Trivial patch for master and REL9_4_STABLE attached as long as I don't > forget it.. It was originally intentional that the apply delay could be negative, cf http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52a59d10.7020...@lab.ntt.co.jp The argument for that was completely bogus, as noted further downthread: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131212110505.ga14...@alap2.anarazel.de but it looks like there are still residues of it in the committed patch; both this and the totally meaningless reference to timezone differential in the parameter's documentation. Of course, if recovery_min_apply_delay were a proper GUC, we'd just configure it with a minimum value of zero and be done :-( regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
