Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTilx2PP8QHxSu1CCsaZsj9BcOnT9Nq4TMwL-7u35@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I stand by my suggestion from yesterday: Let's define max_standby_delay >> as the difference between a piece of WAL becoming available in the >> standby, and applying it. > > My proposal is essentially the same as yours plus allowing the DBA to > choose different max delays for the caught-up and not-caught-up cases. > Maybe everybody will end up setting the two delays the same, but I think > we don't have enough experience to decide that for them now. Applying WAL that arrives via SR is not always the sign of the caught-up or not-caught-up. OTOH, applying WAL restored from archive is not always the sign of either of them. So isn't it nonsense to separate the delay in order to control the behavior of a recovery for those cases? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: