> Now that I've realized what the real problem is with max_standby_delay
> (namely, that inactivity on the master can use up the delay), I think
> we should do what Tom originally suggested here. It's not as good as
> a really working max_standby_delay, but we're not going to have that
> for 9.0, and it's clearly better than a boolean.
I guess I'm not clear on how what Tom proposed is fundamentally
different from max_standby_delay = -1. If there's enough concurrent
queries, recovery would never catch up.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
