Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Overall I would say opinion is about evenly split between:
>>
>> - leave it as-is
>> - make it a Boolean
>> - change it in some way but to something more expressive than a
>> Boolean
I think a boolean would limit the environments in which HS would be
useful. Personally, I think how far the replica is behind the
source is a more useful metric, even with anomalies on the
transition from idle to active; but a blocking duration would be
much better than no finer control than the boolean. So my "instant
runoff second choice" would be for the block duration knob.
> time for a decision, and with no one agreeing on what to do,
> feature removal seemed like the best approach.
I keep wondering at the assertion that once a GUC is present
(especially a tuning GUC like this) that we're stuck with it. I
know that's true of SQL code constructs, but postgresql.conf files?
How about redirect_stderr, max_fsm_*, sort_mem, etc.? This argument
seems tenuous.
> Suggesting we will fix it later in beta is not a solution.
I'm with you there, 100%
-Kevin