On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Yeah, I could live with that. > > A problem with using the name "max_standby_delay" for Tom's suggestion > is that it sounds like a hard limit, which it isn't. But if we name it > something like: > > # -1 = no timeout > # 0 = kill conflicting queries immediately > # > 0 wait for N seconds, then kill query > standby_conflict_timeout = -1 > > it's more clear that the setting is a timeout for each *conflict*, and > it's less surprising that the standby can fall indefinitely behind in > the worst case. If we name the setting along those lines, I could live > with that.
Yeah, if we do it that way, +1 for changing the name, and your suggestion seems good. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
