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

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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 
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group