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

Re: max_wal_senders must die

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(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: 2010-10-19 19:32:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 10/19/2010 09:06 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
>>> I think Magnus's idea to bump the default to 5 triages the worst of the
>>> annoyance here, without dropping the feature (which has uses) or waiting
>>> for new development to complete.

> Setting max_wal_senders to a non-zero value causes additional work to
> be done every time a transaction commits, aborts, or is prepared.

Yes.  This isn't just a numeric parameter; it's also a boolean
indicating "do I want to pay the overhead to be prepared to be a
replication master?".  Josh has completely failed to make a case that
that should be the default.  In fact, the system would fail to start
at all if we just changed the default for max_wal_senders and not the
default for wal_level.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2010-10-19 19:36:20
Subject: Re: patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-10-19 19:23:43
Subject: Re: gist DatumGetPointer returns pointer to corrupted data

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