Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:53:34 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: hot_standby_feedback and max_standby_archive_delay
Message-ID: <20140417145334.GC7443@momjian.us>
References: <52D86D65.5010000@joh.to>
 <CAHGQGwFnnw0sBYh6=osF7_A+uTyUC5=-56hrJv6jvYb=C4hhbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140416185115.GI7443@momjian.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140416185115.GI7443@momjian.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:51:15PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.

Patch applied.

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

  + Everyone has their own god. +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs