Re: Hot Standby (v9d)

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:27 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 18:55 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> I still *strongly* feel the default has to be the
>>> non-destructive conservative -1.
>> 
>> I don't. Primarily, we must support high availability. It is much better
>> if we get people saying "I get my queries cancelled" and we say RTFM and
>> change parameter X, than if people say "my failover was 12 hours behind
>> when I needed it to be 10 seconds behind and I lost a $1 million because
>> of downtime of Postgres" and we say RTFM and change parameter X.

> If the person was stupid enough to configure it for such as thing they
> deserve to the lose the money.

Well, those unexpectedly cancelled queries could have represented
critical functionality too.  I think this argument calls the entire
approach into question.  If there is no safe setting for the parameter
then we need to find a way to not have the parameter.
        regards, tom lane