Re: max_wal_senders must die

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die
Date: 2010-10-29 00:22:03
Message-ID: 1288311723.22359.178.camel@jd-desktop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 17:12 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Sorry, didn't know... I have 122 responses so far, which I think will be
> > surprising (some of them certainly surprised me). I will keep it open
> > until next week and then post the results.
>
> Well, for any community site poll, I hope you realize that there's a LOT
> of sampling error. Here's another one:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/community/survey.71
>

Oh sure. I don't expect this to be some kind of authoritative reference
but it is certainly worth at least reviewing. If nothing else it is fun
to see the responses and consider their meaning based on your own views.

JD

--
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2010-10-29 03:00:24 sorted writes for checkpoints
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2010-10-29 00:12:06 Re: max_wal_senders must die