On 05/01/15 20:44, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
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 :-(
Amen. We should *really* convert all of the recovery.conf parameters
to be GUCs
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 :-(
Amen. We should *really* convert all of the recovery.conf parameters
to be GUCs.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http:
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> 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 i
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> While reviewing another patch, I have noticed that
>> recovery_min_apply_delay can have a negative value. And the funny part is
>> that we actually
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> While reviewing another patch, I have noticed that
recovery_min_apply_delay can have a negative value. And the funny part is
that we actually attempt to apply a delay even in this case, per se this
condition recoveryApplyDela
