| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Logical replication existing data copy |
| Date: | 2017-03-04 05:46:50 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaN2d5mJnd23Goo_ot-p_=+9zcXXu2z=4CqM0BGOnsFEQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> wrote:
> Would you remind me why synchronous_commit = on was deemed a better default?
I'm wondering about that, too. If you're trying to do logical
synchronous replication, then maybe there's some argument there,
although even in that case I am not sure it's actually necessary. But
if you're doing asynchronous logical replication, it seems not to make
much sense. I mean, walwriter is going to flush the WAL to disk
within a fraction of a second; why would we wait for that to happen
instead of getting on with replicating the next transaction meanwhile?
(There may well be an aspect to this I'm missing, so please forgive me
if the above is off-base.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-04 05:52:09 | Re: [BUGS] Seems bug in postgres_fdw? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-04 05:43:35 | Re: Patch: Optimize memory allocation in function 'bringetbitmap' |