Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 13:13 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Simon Riggs (simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > I guarantee that if that proposal goes in, people will complain about
> > that also. Last minute behaviour changes are bad news. I don't object to
> > adding something, just don't take anything away. It's not like the code
> > for it is pages long or anything.
>
> I have to disagree with this. If it goes into 9.0 this way then we're
> signing up to support it for *years*. With something as fragile as the
> existing setup (as outlined by Tom), that's probably not a good idea.
> We've not signed up to support the existing behaviour at all yet-
> alpha's aren't a guarentee of what we're going to release.

That's a great argument, either way. We will have to live with 9.0 for
many years and so that's why I mention having both. Make a choice either
way and we take a risk. Why?

> > The trade off is HA or queries and two modes make sense for user choice.
>
> The option isn't being thrown out, it's just being made to depend on
> something which is alot easier to measure while still being very useful
> for the trade-off you're talking about. I don't really see a downside
> to this, to be honest. Perhaps you could speak to the specific user
> experience difference that you think there would be from this change?
>
> +1 from me on Tom's proposal.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com