Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: max_wal_senders must die

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die
Date: 2010-10-27 19:33:55
Message-ID: 26037.1288208035@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> Josh has completely failed to make a case that
>>> that should be the default.
>> 
>> Agreed.

> In what way have a failed to make a case?

You're assuming that we should set up the default behavior to support
replication and penalize those who aren't using it.  Considering that
we haven't even *had* replication until now, it seems a pretty safe
bet that the majority of our users aren't using it and won't appreciate
that default.  We routinely expend large amounts of effort to avoid
cross-version performance regressions, and I don't see that this one
is acceptable when others aren't.

I entirely agree that it ought to be easier to set up replication.
But there's a difference between having a big red EASY button for people
to push, and pushing it for them.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-10-27 19:38:17
Subject: Re: Simplifying replication
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-10-27 19:10:58
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group