Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 14:40 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Uh, we have three days before we package 9.0beta2. It would be >> good if we could decide on the max_standby_delay issue soon. > > I've heard something from Heikki, not from anyone else. Those > comments amount to "lets replace max_standby_delay with > max_apply_delay". > > Got a beta idea? Given the incessant ticking of the clock, I have a hard time believing we have any real options besides max_standby_delay or a boolean which corresponds to the -1 and 0 settings of max_standby_delay. I think it's pretty clear that there's a use case for the positive values, although there are bound to be some who try it and are surprised by behavior at transition from idle to active. The whole debate seems to boil down to how important a middle ground is versus how damaging the surprise factor is. (I don't really buy the argument that we won't be able to remove it later if we replace it with something better.) I know there were initially some technical problems, too; have those been resolved? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
