Greg Smith wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Doesn't the system already adjust the delay based on the length of slave
> > transactions, e.g. max_standby_delay. It seems there is no need for a
> > user switch --- just max_standby_delay really high.
> >
>
> The first issue is that you're basically saying "I don't care about high
> availability anymore" when you increase max_standby_delay to a high
> value. Want to offload an 8 hour long batch report every day to the
> standby? You can do it with max_standby_delay=8 hours. But the day
> your master crashes 7 hours into that, you're in for a long wait before
> your standby is available while it replays all the queued up segments.
> Your 'hot standby' has actually turned into the old form of 'cold
> standby' just when you need it to be responsive.
Well, I think the choice is either you delay vacuum on the master for 8
hours or pile up 8 hours of WAL files on the slave, and delay
application, and make recovery much slower. It is not clear to me which
option a user would prefer because the bloat on the master might be
permanent.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.comPG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard
drive,Christ can be your backup. +
