| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: max_wal_senders must die |
| Date: | 2010-10-20 14:40:15 |
| Message-ID: | 26313.1287585615@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Going from wal_level='minimal' to 'archive' incurs the penalty on
> WAL-logging COPY etc. That's a big penalty. However, the difference
> between wal_level='archive' and wal_level='hot_standby' should be tiny.
I'm not sure I believe that either, because of the costs associated with
logging lock acquisitions.
We really need some actual benchmarks in this area, rather than
handwaving ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen R. van den Berg | 2010-10-20 14:44:53 | Re: pg_rawdump |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-10-20 14:35:07 | Re: How to reliably detect if it's a promoting standby |