On 05/01/15 20:44, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Of course, if recovery_min_apply_delay were a proper GUC, we'd just
configure it with a minimum value of zero and be done :-(
Amen. We should *really* convert all of the recovery.conf parameters
to be GUCs.
Well, there is an ongoing effort on that and I think the patch is very
close to the state where committer should take a look IMHO, I have only
couple of gripes with it now and one of them needs opinions of others
anyway.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
