Re: [HACKERS] hot_standby_feedback default and docs

2015-09-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/23/15 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> On 9/16/15 5:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: IMHO the default is the best one at the current time. See recovery_min_apply_delay.

Re: [HACKERS] hot_standby_feedback default and docs

2015-09-23 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/23/15 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 9/16/15 5:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> IMHO the default is the best one at the current time. >>> See recovery_min_apply_delay. >> >> The applications of recovery_min_apply_delay are likely to

Re: [HACKERS] hot_standby_feedback default and docs

2015-09-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/16/15 5:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> IMHO the default is the best one at the current time. >> See recovery_min_apply_delay. > > The applications of recovery_min_apply_delay are likely to be varied and > specific, so there might not be

Re: [HACKERS] hot_standby_feedback default and docs

2015-09-22 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/16/15 5:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > IMHO the default is the best one at the current time. > See recovery_min_apply_delay. The applications of recovery_min_apply_delay are likely to be varied and specific, so there might not be a general answer to this, but wouldn't you want hot_standby_feedba

Re: [HACKERS] hot_standby_feedback default and docs

2015-09-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On 16 September 2015 at 15:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/16/15 1:12 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > >> Also, the documentation claims that this parameter requires a postmaster > >> restart, but the code thinks it's SIGHUP. Which o

Re: [HACKERS] hot_standby_feedback default and docs

2015-09-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/16/15 1:12 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Also, the documentation claims that this parameter requires a postmaster >> restart, but the code thinks it's SIGHUP. Which one is wrong? > > To which part of the documentation are you referr

Re: [HACKERS] hot_standby_feedback default and docs

2015-09-16 Thread Michael Paquier
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Also, the documentation claims that this parameter requires a postmaster > restart, but the code thinks it's SIGHUP. Which one is wrong? To which part of the documentation are you referring to? The parameter is SIGHUP as I recall and aim