Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> An important property of this design is that all relevant timestamps
> are taken on the slave, so clock skew isn't an issue.

I agree that this is important, and I do run NTP on all my servers and
even monitor it using Nagios.

It's still not a cure-all for time skew issues.

> Comments?

I'm not really a huge fan of adding another GUC, to be honest. I'm more
inclined to say we treat 'max_archive_delay' as '0', and turn
max_streaming_delay into what you've described. If we fall back so far
that we have to go back to reading WALs, then we need to hurry up and
catch-up and damn the torpedos. I'd also prefer that we only wait the
delay time once until we're fully caught up again (and have gotten
back around to waiting for new data).

Thanks,

Stephen