Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I could live with that.
>
> A problem with using the name "max_standby_delay" for Tom's suggestion
> is that it sounds like a hard limit, which it isn't. But if we name it
> something like:
>
> # -1 = no timeout
> # 0 = kill conflicting queries immediately
> # > 0 wait for N seconds, then kill query
> standby_conflict_timeout = -1
>
> it's more clear that the setting is a timeout for each *conflict*, and
> it's less surprising that the standby can fall indefinitely behind in
> the worst case. If we name the setting along those lines, I could live
> with that.

Yeah, if we do it that way, +1 for changing the name, and your
suggestion seems good.

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