Re: max_wal_senders must die

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die
Date: 2010-10-27 19:10:58
Message-ID: 1288206658.1587.2119.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 10:05 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> Josh has completely failed to make a case that
> >> that should be the default.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> In what way have a failed to make a case?

I just removed a huge hurdle on the journey to simplification. That
doesn't mean I think you have come up with an acceptable solution,
though there probably is one.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-10-27 19:33:55 Re: max_wal_senders must die
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2010-10-27 18:51:23 Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle