http://www.slony.info/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235

--- Comment #7 from Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg at fifthhorseman.net> 2011-08-24 11:13:10 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I agree that the "desired sync time" is confusing and we should move away
> towards just specifying a max group size.

Yes, fewer configuration options is better :)  We know the db administrator
wants to keep the sync lag low.  Having fiddly knobs labeled "make the sync lag
shorter, except sometimes when it makes them longer" isn't terribly helpful.

> Does it make more sense to start at max_group_size and reduce that to smaller
> values on failures?  (this only works if slon doens't get restarted/segfault on
> the failures)

The one concern i can see being raised with this approach is that (with a
radically over-provisioned max_group_size) it's possible for a huge sync group
to take forever.  However, if there just aren't that many SYNCs available,
presumably the group would just complete successfully with the set of
currently-available SYNCs?  In that case, i think the starting-large and
falling off is better than starting-small and ramping-up.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.slony.info/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.