On Feb 17, 2015 12:26 AM, "Andres Freund" <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2015-02-16 16:35:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > It seems we already have a mechanism in place that allows tuning of > > query cancel on standbys vs. preventing standby queries from seeing old > > data, specifically > > max_standby_streaming_delay/max_standby_archive_delay. We obsessed > > about how users were going to react to these odd variables, but there > > has been little negative feedback. > > FWIW, I think that's a somewhat skewed perception. I think it was right to > introduce those, because we didn't really have any alternatives. > > But max_standby_streaming_delay, max_standby_archive_delay and > hot_standby_feedback are among the most frequent triggers for questions > and complaints that I/we see. >
Agreed. And a really bad one used to be vacuum_defer_cleanup_age, because of confusing units amongst other things. Which in terms seems fairly close to Kevins suggestions, unfortunately. /Magnus
