Robert Haas wrote: > >> If you have the monitoring in place to sensibly monitor the delay > >> between primary and standby, and you want a limit on that, you can put > >> together a script to flip the switch in postgresql.conf if the standby > >> falls too much behind. > >> > >> It would be nice to make that settable per-session, BTW. Though as soon > >> as you have one session using -1, the standby could fall behind. Still, > >> it might be useful if you run both kinds of queries on the same standby. > > > > +1 for a boolean > > > > We are not supposed to be designing the behavior during beta, which is > > exactly what we are doing, and I don't think we even know what behavior > > we want, let alone have we implemented it. ?I think a boolean is very > > clear and it gives you the chance to optimize _one_ case, which is > > enough for 9.0. ?Let's revisit this for 9.1 when we will know a lot more > > than we do now. > > The existing behavior is probably not optimal, but I'm not seeing what > benefit we get out of neutering it.
We get to design it right, or maybe not need it at all in 9.1. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
