Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Let's rip out the concept of a delay altogether, and make it a boolean.
> So the only user options would be "allow long-running queries to block > WAL application forever" and "always cancel queries on conflict? Got it in one. Obviously, this is something that would be high priority to improve in some fashion in 9.1. That doesn't mean that it's reasonable to drop in a half-baked redesign now, nor to put in the amount of work that would be required to have a really well-designed implementation, and most certainly not to uncritically ship what we've got. We have a ton of other work that has to be done to get 9.0 out the door, and this feature is something that IMO we can live without for this release. One reason I believe this isn't so critical as all that is that it only matters for cases where the operation on the master took an exclusive lock. In high-performance production scenarios that's something you try hard to avoid anyway. When you succeed, the standby behavior is moot. Even if you can't avoid exclusive locks entirely, you may be able to confine them to maintenance windows where performance doesn't matter so much ... and then that goes for the standby performance as well. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers