Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTin3_hE8TVO71GzIVBVISaelJNdiS6EJmHaTzlKS@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> I haven't been able to wrap my head around why the delay should be >> LESS in the archive case than in the streaming case. Can you attempt >> to hit me with the clue-by-four? > > In the archive case, you're presumably trying to catch up, and so it > makes sense to kill queries faster so you can catch up. On the flip side, the timeout for the WAL segment is for 16MB of WAL, whereas the timeout for SR is normally going to be for a much smaller chunk (right?). So even with the same value for both, it seems like queries will be killed more aggressively during archive recovery. Even so, it seems useful to have both. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: