Re: hot_standby_feedback and max_standby_archive_delay - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: hot_standby_feedback and max_standby_archive_delay
Date
Msg-id 20140416185115.GI7443@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: hot_standby_feedback and max_standby_archive_delay  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: hot_standby_feedback and max_standby_archive_delay  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: hot_standby_feedback and max_standby_archive_delay  (Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>)
List pgsql-docs
On Mon, Feb  3, 2014 at 01:08:44AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Myself and others found this statement in the documentation about $SUBJECT
> > very confusing: "max_standby_archive_delay must be kept large in this case,
> > because delayed WAL files might already contain entries that conflict with
> > the desired standby queries.".  After a chat with Andres I've tried to make
> > it clearer what said statement tries to convey.
> >
> > Did I succeed?
>
> Don't we need to increase also max_standby_streaming_delay
> in the case that you mentioned in the patch? When the standby
> successfully reconnects to the master, lots of WAL files would
> be streamed and they might already have WAL entries that
> conflict with standby queries. No?

I have developed the attached doc patch to improve the wording on this
topic.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

Attachment

pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: documentation: json processing table pasto
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: category of min_recovery_apply_delay