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

Re: max_wal_senders must die

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die
Date: 2010-10-27 20:42:42
Message-ID: 4CC88EC2.2080803@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> You're assuming that we should set up the default behavior to support
> replication and penalize those who aren't using it.

What's the penalty?  Simon just said that there isn't one.

And there's a difference between saying that I "failed to make a case"
vs. "the cost is too great".  Saying the former is saying that my
argument lacks merit (or content) entirely, rather than saying that it's
not sufficient.  I made a case, the case just didn't persuade you ... yet.

> 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.

If we have a single boolean GUC called "replication", I would be happy.
 Even if it defaulted to "off".

-- 
                                  -- Josh Berkus
                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                     http://www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-10-27 20:53:37
Subject: Re: foreign keys for array/period contains relationships
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2010-10-27 19:53:29
Subject: Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock

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