Hi, On Thursday 06 May 2010 07:35:49 Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >> I am afraid the current setting is tempting for users to enable, but > >> will be so unpredictable that it will tarnish the repuation of HS and > >> Postgres. We don't want to be thinking in 9 months, "Wow, we shouldn't > >> have shipped that features. It is causing all kinds of problems." We > >> have done that before (rarely), and it isn't a good feeling. > > > > I am not convinced it will be unpredictable. The only caveats that > > I've seen so far are: > > > > - You need to run ntpd. > > - Queries will get cancelled like crazy if you're not using steaming > > replication. > > And also in situations where the master is idle for a while and then > starts doing stuff. That's the most significant source of confusion, > IMHO, I wouldn't mind the requirement of ntpd so much. Personally I would much rather like to keep that configurability and manually generate a record a second. Or possibly do something akin to archive_timeout...
That may be not as important once there are less sources of conflict resolutions - but thats something *definitely* not going to happen for 9.0... Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
