MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52D86D65.5010000@joh.to>
References: <52D86D65.5010000@joh.to>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 01:08:44 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAHGQGwFnnw0sBYh6=osF7_A+uTyUC5=-56hrJv6jvYb=C4hhbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: hot_standby_feedback and max_standby_archive_delay
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>
Cc: pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

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?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao


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