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

Re: max_wal_senders must die

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die
Date: 2010-10-19 19:00:24
Message-ID: AANLkTi=jm0=evkve0D+UXpMfjSnW4Tx-23gFbGPRp3YW@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 09:06 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
>>
>> I think Magnus's idea to bump the default to 5 triages the worst of the
>> annoyance here, without dropping the feature (which has uses) or waiting
>> for new development to complete.  I'd be in favor of just committing
>> that change right now, before it gets forgotten about, and then if
>> nobody else gets around to further work at least something improved here
>> for 9.1.
>
> Heck, even *I* could write that patch, if we're agreed.  Although you can
> commit it.

Setting max_wal_senders to a non-zero value causes additional work to
be done every time a transaction commits, aborts, or is prepared.
It's possible that this overhead is too trivial to be worth worrying
about; I haven't looked at it closely.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2010-10-19 19:01:03
Subject: Re: Creation of temporary tables on read-only standbyservers
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-10-19 18:53:47
Subject: Re: Extensions, this time with a patch

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