Horton

Re: Hot Standby (v9d)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: jd@commandprompt.com
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2009-01-28T19:56:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:27 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 18:55 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> I still *strongly* feel the default has to be the
>>> non-destructive conservative -1.
>> 
>> I don't. Primarily, we must support high availability. It is much better
>> if we get people saying "I get my queries cancelled" and we say RTFM and
>> change parameter X, than if people say "my failover was 12 hours behind
>> when I needed it to be 10 seconds behind and I lost a $1 million because
>> of downtime of Postgres" and we say RTFM and change parameter X.

> If the person was stupid enough to configure it for such as thing they
> deserve to the lose the money.

Well, those unexpectedly cancelled queries could have represented
critical functionality too.  I think this argument calls the entire
approach into question.  If there is no safe setting for the parameter
then we need to find a way to not have the parameter.

			regards, tom lane