Re: Replication/backup defaults

Greetings,

* Magnus Hagander (magnus(at)hagander(dot)net) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> > <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On 1/9/17 7:44 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > >> So based on that, I suggest we go ahead and make the change to make both
> > >> the values 10 by default. And that we do that now, because that lets us
> > >> get it out through more testing on different platforms, so that we catch
> > >> issues earlier on if they do arise.
> > >
> > > Sounds good.
> >
> > I may be outvoted, but I'm still not in favor of changing the default
> > wal_level. That caters only to people who lack sufficient foresight
> > to know that they need a replica before the system becomes so critical
> > that they can't bounce it to update the configuration.
>
> True. But the current level only caters to those people who run large ETL
> jobs without doing any tuning on their system (at least none that would
> require a restart), or another one of the fairly specific workloads.
>
> And as I keep re-iterating, it's not just about replicas, it's also about
> the ability to make proper backups. Which is a pretty fundamental feature.
>
> I do think you are outvoted, yes :) At least that's the result of my
> tallying up the people who have spoken out on the thread.

I tend to agree with Magnus on this, being able to perform an online
backup is pretty darn important.

Thanks!

Stephen