Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay
Date
Msg-id AANLkTinUrN_XO5dRqIaIKfEaMZPGd9IrwYwXz3-qVdvm@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 17:56 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> > I don't understand why you want to use a different delay when you're
>> > restoring from archive vs. when you're streaming (what about existing WAL
>> > files found in pg_xlog, BTW?). The source of WAL shouldn't make a
>> > difference.
>>
>> Yes. The pace of a recovery has nothing to do with that of log shipping.
>> So to hurry up a recovery when restoring from archive seems to be useless.
>
> When streaming drops for some reason we revert to scanning the archive
> for files. There is clearly two modes of operation.

Yes.

> So it makes sense
> that you might want to set different times for the parameter in each
> case.

What purpose would that serve?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: "caught_up" status in walsender
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Idea for getting rid of VACUUM FREEZE on cold pages