Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Date: 2010-05-08 23:42:15
Message-ID: 201005090142.16933.andres@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sunday 09 May 2010 01:34:18 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I think everyone agrees the current code is unusable, per Heikki's
> comment about a WAL file arriving after a period of no WAL activity, and
> look how long it took our group to even understand why that fails so
> badly.
To be honest its not *that* hard to simply make sure generating wal regularly
to combat that. While it surely aint a nice workaround its not much of a
problem either.

Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-05-09 00:57:26 Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-05-08 23:34:18 Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful