| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Date: | 2016-08-25 14:57:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa_eqdyEyJyzpbhz05S0+QAG2kYMC8tCwVL7GYYw0AgcQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> My point wasn't really that archive_command should actually be simple.
>> My point was that if it's being run multiple times per second, there
>> are additional challenges that wouldn't arise if it were being run
>> only every 5-10 seconds.
>
> My point was that the concerns about TCP/ssh startup costs, which was
> part of your point #1 in your initial justification for the change,
> have been addressed through tooling.
It's good to know that some tool sets have addressed that, but I'm
pretty certain that not every tool set has done so, probably not even
all of the ones in common use. Anyway, I think the requirements we
impose on archive_command today are just crazy. All other things
being equal, changes that make it easier to write a decent one are
IMHO going in the right direction.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-08-25 15:01:40 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-08-25 14:39:52 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |