> So I think the primary solution currently is to raise max_standby_age. > > However there is a concern with max_standby_age. If you set it to, > say, 300s. Then run a 300s query on the slave which causes the slave > to fall 299s behind. Now you start a new query on the slave -- it gets > a snapshot based on the point in time that the slave is currently at. > If it hits a conflict it will only have 1s to finish before the > conflict causes the query to be cancelled.
Completely aside from that, how many users are going to be happy with a slave server which is constantly 5 minutes behind? --Josh Berkus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
