> That's not even considering the extra WAL that is generated when you
> move up from wal_level = "minimal". That's probably the bigger
> performance issue in practice.
Yeah, I think we've established that we can't change that.
> I said, and meant, that you didn't make the case at all; you just
> presumed it was obvious that we should change the defaults to be
> replication-friendly. I don't think it is. As I said, I think that
> only a minority of our users are going to want replication.
50% of PGX's active clients have either already converted to 9.0
replication or have scheduled a conversion with us. I expect that to be
80% by the time 9.1 comes out, and the main reason why it's not 100% is
that a few clients specifically need Slony (partial replication or
similar) or ad-hoc replication systems.
Every time I do a walk-through of how to do replication at a PG event
it's packed. I've talked to dozens of people who are planning to
implement 9.0 replication at conferences, and it's outpaced "how does it
compare to MySQL" for stuff people ask me about at booths.
From where I sit, you're *dramatically* underestimating the demand for
replication. Maybe other people haven't had the same experiences, but
I'm seeing an avalanche of demand.
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Daniel Farina||Date: 2010-10-27 23:18:21|
|Subject: An unfortunate logging behavior when (mis)configuring recovery.conf|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-10-27 22:01:38|
|Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die |