Re: History of WAL_LEVEL (archive vs hot_standby)

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: History of WAL_LEVEL (archive vs hot_standby)
Date: 2014-03-27 22:44:45
Message-ID: 5334A9DD.70901@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 03/27/2014 03:06 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> As I think both can be used for PITR I don't believe there is much downside,
> technically or with resources, to using hot_standby instead of archive; but
> I do not imagine it having any practical benefit either.

Actually, "hot_standby" does have to write some extra records to the WAL
which "archive" does not. I don't know that anyone has checked the
actual volume difference between the two, though, which would probably
also vary by workload.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2014-03-28 00:17:36 Re: Useless "Replica Identity: NOTHING" noise from psql \d
Previous Message Sergey Konoplev 2014-03-27 22:26:48 Re: Cube extension kNN support