Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru
Cc: mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication
Date: 2019-08-22 03:13:23
Message-ID: 20190822.121323.59215860.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello.

At Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:06:52 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote in <968fc591-51d3-fd74-8a55-40aa770baa3a(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
> Ok, you convinced me that there are cases when people want to combine
> logical replication with streaming replication without slot.
> But is it acceptable to have GUC variable (disabled by default) which
> allows to use this optimizations?

The odds are quite high. Couldn't we introduce a new wal_level
value instead?

wal_level = logical_only

I think this thread shows that logical replication no longer is a
superset(?) of physical replication. I thougt that we might be
able to change wal_level from scalar to bitmap but it breaks
backward compatibility..

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-08-22 03:13:32 Re: [PATCH] Stop ALTER SYSTEM from making bad assumptions
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-08-22 03:02:57 Re: Grouping isolationtester tests in the schedule