On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> There's *definitely* not going to be enough information in the WAL
> stream coming from a master that doesn't think it has HS slaves.
> We can't afford to record all that extra stuff in installations for
> which it's just useless overhead. BTW, has anyone made any attempt
> to measure the performance hit that the patch in its current form is
> creating via added WAL entries?
What extra entries?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-26 21:30:34|
|Subject: Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-26 21:22:15|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby query cancellation and Streaming