Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 17:49 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 12:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:

> Normal shutdown didn't work on a standby before HS was committed and it
> didn't work afterwards either. Use all the capitals you like but if you
> use poor arguments and combine that with no evidence then we'll not get
> very far, either in working together or in solving the actual bugs.
> Please don't continue to make wild speculations about things related to
> HS and recovery, so that issues do not become confused; there is no need
> to comment on every thread.
> 

Simon,

People are very passionate about this feature. This feature has the
ability to show us as moving forward in a fashion that will allow us to
directly compete with the "big boys" in the "big installs", although we
are still probably 2-3 releases from that.

It also has the ability to make us look like a bunch of yahoos (no pun
intended) who are better served beating up on that database that Oracle
just bought, versus Oracle itself.

Patience is a virtue for all when it comes to the this feature.

Joshua D. Drake


-- 
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering