Re: [HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

2015-01-05 Thread Petr Jelinek
On 05/01/15 20:44, Robert Haas wrote: On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us 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

Re: [HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

2015-01-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us 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

Re: [HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

2015-01-03 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, While reviewing another patch, I have noticed that recovery_min_apply_delay can have a negative value. And the

Re: [HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

2015-01-03 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Fabrízio 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

Re: [HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

2014-12-29 Thread Fabrízio de Royes Mello
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com 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

[HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

2014-12-28 Thread Michael Paquier
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 recoveryApplyDelay@xlog.c: /* nothing to do if no delay configured */