Joachim Wieland wrote: > 1) With the current implementation they will see better performance on > the master and more aggressive vacuum (!), since they have less > long-running queries now on the master and autovacuum can kick in and > clean up with less delay than before. On the other hand their queries > on the standby might fail and they will start thinking that this HS+SR > feature is not as convincing as they thought it was... Next step for > them is to take the documentation and study it for a few days to learn > all about vacuum, different delays, transaction ids and age parameters > and experiment a few weeks until no more queries fail - for a while... > But they can never be sure... In the end they might also modify the > parameters in the wrong direction or overshoot because of lack of time > to experiment and lose another important property without noticing > (like being as close as possible to the master).
I assumed they would set max_standby_delay = -1 and be happy. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
