Thread: hot_standby_feedback default and docs
Related to the ongoing discussion about replication default settings, is there a current reason why hot_standby_feedback is not the default? Also, the documentation claims that this parameter requires a postmaster restart, but the code thinks it's SIGHUP. Which one is wrong?
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > Also, the documentation claims that this parameter requires a postmaster > restart, but the code thinks it's SIGHUP. Which one is wrong? To which part of the documentation are you referring to? The parameter is SIGHUP as I recall and aimed to be such. -- Michael
On 9/16/15 1:12 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >> Also, the documentation claims that this parameter requires a postmaster >> restart, but the code thinks it's SIGHUP. Which one is wrong? > > To which part of the documentation are you referring to? The parameter > is SIGHUP as I recall and aimed to be such. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/runtime-config-replication.html#GUC-HOT-STANDBY-FEEDBACK
On 16 September 2015 at 15:37, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
--
On 9/16/15 1:12 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Also, the documentation claims that this parameter requires a postmaster
>> restart, but the code thinks it's SIGHUP. Which one is wrong?
>
> To which part of the documentation are you referring to? The parameter
> is SIGHUP as I recall and aimed to be such.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/runtime-config-replication.html#GUC-HOT-STANDBY-FEEDBACK
Those docs say "This parameter can only be set in the postgresql.conf file or on the server command line."
When a restart is required we say "This parameter can only be set at server start."
e.g. hot_standby
So the docs look correct.
IMHO the default is the best one at the current time. See recovery_min_apply_delay.
I've got some changes that I'd like to make once Kevin's snapshot too old patch has gone thru that might change that.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 9/16/15 5:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > IMHO the default is the best one at the current time. > See recovery_min_apply_delay. The applications of recovery_min_apply_delay are likely to be varied and specific, so there might not be a general answer to this, but wouldn't you want hot_standby_feedback on with it? Because the longer you wait on the standby, the more likely it is that the primary will clean stuff away.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > On 9/16/15 5:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> IMHO the default is the best one at the current time. >> See recovery_min_apply_delay. > > The applications of recovery_min_apply_delay are likely to be varied and > specific, so there might not be a general answer to this, but wouldn't > you want hot_standby_feedback on with it? Because the longer you wait > on the standby, the more likely it is that the primary will clean stuff > away. If min_recovery_apply_delay was set to 1 hour, and if the standby had hot standby feedback turned on, wouldn't that mean that the master had to not do any HOT pruning or vacuuming of tuples until they had been dead for at least an hour? That seems like it would be bad. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 9/23/15 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >> On 9/16/15 5:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> IMHO the default is the best one at the current time. >>> See recovery_min_apply_delay. >> >> The applications of recovery_min_apply_delay are likely to be varied and >> specific, so there might not be a general answer to this, but wouldn't >> you want hot_standby_feedback on with it? Because the longer you wait >> on the standby, the more likely it is that the primary will clean stuff >> away. > > If min_recovery_apply_delay was set to 1 hour, and if the standby had > hot standby feedback turned on, wouldn't that mean that the master had > to not do any HOT pruning or vacuuming of tuples until they had been > dead for at least an hour? That seems like it would be bad. I suppose that's what would happen, and it might be bad, but the alternative is that the primary might vacuum away everything and you won't be able to make much use of the delayed standby. I'm not clear on the intended usage scenarios for recovery_min_apply_delay, but the ramifications don't appear to be well explained anywhere.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > On 9/23/15 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >>> On 9/16/15 5:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>>> IMHO the default is the best one at the current time. >>>> See recovery_min_apply_delay. >>> >>> The applications of recovery_min_apply_delay are likely to be varied and >>> specific, so there might not be a general answer to this, but wouldn't >>> you want hot_standby_feedback on with it? Because the longer you wait >>> on the standby, the more likely it is that the primary will clean stuff >>> away. >> >> If min_recovery_apply_delay was set to 1 hour, and if the standby had >> hot standby feedback turned on, wouldn't that mean that the master had >> to not do any HOT pruning or vacuuming of tuples until they had been >> dead for at least an hour? That seems like it would be bad. > > I suppose that's what would happen, and it might be bad, but the > alternative is that the primary might vacuum away everything and you > won't be able to make much use of the delayed standby. > > I'm not clear on the intended usage scenarios for > recovery_min_apply_delay, but the ramifications don't appear to be well > explained anywhere. Well, the alternative to enabling hot standby feedback is that the query might get cancelled. But it might also NOT get cancelled. I mean, if recovery_min_apply_delay is set to an hour, and the query runs for a minute, you're only going to get a cancel if some data that is needed got pruned during the correponding minute an hour earlier on the master. And even then you can avoid a cancel by setting max.*standby_delay to at least 61 seconds, which is more likely to be acceptable for a standby that intentionally lags the master. But even if you don't do that, it's not as if every query you issue is going to get cancelled. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company