| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Date: | 2010-05-06 01:47:42 |
| Message-ID: | h2t407d949e1005051847r7e14eddcw5cab89584ab6e43c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | Postg토토 사이트SQL |
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> One reason I believe this isn't so critical as all that is that it only
> matters for cases where the operation on the master took an exclusive
> lock.
Uhm, or a vacuum ran. Or a HOT page cleanup occurred, or a btree page
split deleted old tuples.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-05-06 02:03:17 | Re: On a somewhat disappointing correspondence |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-06 01:36:24 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |