Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 14:40 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> Uh, we have three days before we package 9.0beta2. It would be
>> good if we could decide on the max_standby_delay issue soon.
>
> I've heard something from Heikki, not from anyone else. Those
> comments amount to "lets replace max_standby_delay with
> max_apply_delay".
>
> Got a beta idea?
Given the incessant ticking of the clock, I have a hard time
believing we have any real options besides max_standby_delay or a
boolean which corresponds to the -1 and 0 settings of
max_standby_delay. I think it's pretty clear that there's a use
case for the positive values, although there are bound to be some
who try it and are surprised by behavior at transition from idle to
active. The whole debate seems to boil down to how important a
middle ground is versus how damaging the surprise factor is. (I
don't really buy the argument that we won't be able to remove it
later if we replace it with something better.)
I know there were initially some technical problems, too; have
those been resolved?
-Kevin