On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 16:13 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > That's not even considering the extra WAL that is generated when you
> > move up from wal_level = "minimal". That's probably the bigger
> > performance issue in practice.
> Yeah, I think we've established that we can't change that.
> > I said, and meant, that you didn't make the case at all; you just
> > presumed it was obvious that we should change the defaults to be
> > replication-friendly. I don't think it is. As I said, I think that
> > only a minority of our users are going to want replication.
> 50% of PGX's active clients have either already converted to 9.0
> replication or have scheduled a conversion with us. I expect that to be
> 80% by the time 9.1 comes out, and the main reason why it's not 100% is
> that a few clients specifically need Slony (partial replication or
> similar) or ad-hoc replication systems.
That's interesting. ZERO % of CMD's clients have converted to 9.0 and
many have no current inclination to do so because they are already
easily served by Londiste, Slony, DRBD or Log Shipping.
I would also agree that the minority of our users will want replication.
The majority of CMD customers, PGX customers, EDB Customers will want
replication but that is by far NOT the majority of our (.Org) users.
Joshua D. Drake
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2010-10-27 23:45:04|
|Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die|
|Previous:||From: Daniel Farina||Date: 2010-10-27 23:18:21|
|Subject: An unfortunate logging behavior when (mis)configuring recovery.conf|