On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 14:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
I see the opposite: We don't know what tradeoffs, if any, the user is willing to put up with, so we need input. It is about resource prioritisation and not for us to decide, since these reflect business objectives not internal twangy things like join_collapse_limit. The essential choice is "What would you like the max failover time to be?". Some users want one server with max 5 mins behind, some want two servers, one with 0 seconds behind, one with 12 hours behind -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
