Greetings, * Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Adrian Klaver wrote: > >On 08/12/2018 03:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >>Greetings, > >> > >>* Phil Endecott (spam_from_pgsql_lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >>>OK. I think this is perhaps a documentation bug, maybe a missing > >>>warning when the master reads its configuration, and maybe (as you say) > >>>a bad default value. > >> > >>If we consider it to be an issue worthy of a change then we should > >>probably just change the default value, and maybe not even allow it to > >>be set lower than '1'. > > > >I would say leave the default at 0 as it leaves no doubt that you are > >performing without a net. A setting of '1' implies you are covered and for > >a fast moving cluster or slow moving one with sufficient downtime that > >would not be the case. > > Can you explain how it can fail in the case of a "slow moving cluster with > sufficient downtime"? I'm guessing 'sufficient downtime' here is, basically, 'offline until the next checkpoint', which isn't actually all *that* much time. > It seems to me that if I have correctly understood what happened in this > case then 0, the default, really cannot ever work properly when you have > enabled WAL archiving plus streaming. Well, it's not like it'd work without WAL archiving either, though that's perhaps more obviously true. Thanks! Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
