On 5 August 2016 at 09:16, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 27/07/16 18:54, Chris Travers wrote: >>> Another one I think they obliquely referred to (in the subtle problems >>> section) was the fact that if you have longer-running queries on the >>> replica with a lot of updates, you can get funny auto-vacuum-induced >>> errors (writes from autovacuum on the master can interrupt queries on >>> the slave). BTW if there is interest in what could be done for that, >>> something which allows autovacuum to decide how long to wait before >>> cleaning up dead tuples would be a great enhancement. >> >> You mean something like hot_standby_feedback? >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-replication.html#GUC-HOT-STANDBY-FEEDBACK > > I wonder if their problem could be fixed by using > hot_standby_feedback. I have encountered similar problem but it seems > hot_standby_feedback was not any help in this case: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130829.164457.863984798767991096.t-ishii%40sraoss.co.jp There have been various bugs and enhancements over the years, not all of which were backpatched. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
