Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Date: 2010-05-06 01:47:42
Message-ID: [email protected]
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> One reason I believe this isn't so critical as all that is that it only
> matters for cases where the operation on the master took an exclusive
> lock.

Uhm, or a vacuum ran. Or a HOT page cleanup occurred, or a btree page
split deleted old tuples.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-05-06 02:03:17 Re: On a somewhat disappointing correspondence
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-05-06 01:36:24 Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful