Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> > Clearly, anything is more feature-full than boolean --- the big question
>> > is whether Tom's proposal is significantly better than boolean that we
>> > should spend the time designing and implementing it, with the
>> > possibility it will all be changed in 9.1.
>>
>> I doubt it's likely to be thrown out completely.  We might decide to
>> fine-tune it in some way.  My fear is that if we ship this with only a
>> boolean, we're shipping crippleware.  If that fear turns out to be
>> unfounded, I will of course be happy, but that's my concern, and I
>> don't believe that it's entirely unfounded.
>
> Well, historically, we have been willing to not ship features if we
> can't get it right.  No one has ever accused us of crippleware, but our
> hesitancy has caused slower user adoption, though long-term, it has
> helped us grow a dedicated user base that trusts us.

We can make the decision to not ship the feature if the feature is
"max_standby_delay". But I think the feature is "Hot Standby", which
I think we've pretty much committed to shipping. And I am concerned
that if the only mechanism for controlling query cancellation vs.
recovery lag is a boolean, people feel that we didn't get Hot Standby
right.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company