From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Getting rid of wal_level=archive and default to hot_standby + wal_senders |
Date: | 2015-02-04 15:10:31 |
Message-ID: | 2972.1423062631@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2015-02-03 11:00:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Could we, maybe, even make it a derived value rather than one that is
>> explicitly configured? Like, if you set max_wal_senders>0, you automatically get
>> wal_level=hot_standby?
> Our experience with derived gucs isn't that great. Remember the whole
> effective_cache_size mess? Maybe we just need to find a better way to
> implement that though, instead of avoiding it from here on.
We've proven that it's a bad idea to have a GUC whose default value
depends on another one. However, I thought the proposal here was
to get rid of wal_level as a user-visible knob altogether. That
seems like a fine idea if we can drive the decision off other GUCs
instead.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-02-04 15:21:42 | Re: _pg_relbuf() Relation paramter |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-02-04 15:09:04 | Re: _pg_relbuf() Relation paramter |