| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: max_wal_senders must die | 
| Date: | 2010-10-27 20:42:42 | 
| Message-ID: | 4CC88EC2.2080803@agliodbs.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
> You're assuming that we should set up the default behavior to support
> replication and penalize those who aren't using it.
What's the penalty? Simon just said that there isn't one.
And there's a difference between saying that I "failed to make a case"
vs. "the cost is too great".  Saying the former is saying that my
argument lacks merit (or content) entirely, rather than saying that it's
not sufficient.  I made a case, the case just didn't persuade you ... yet.
> I entirely agree that it ought to be easier to set up replication.
> But there's a difference between having a big red EASY button for people
> to push, and pushing it for them.
If we have a single boolean GUC called "replication", I would be happy.
 Even if it defaulted to "off".
-- 
                                  -- Josh Berkus
                                     PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                     http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-10-27 20:53:37 | Re: foreign keys for array/period contains relationships | 
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-10-27 19:53:29 | Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock |