Re: Bump default wal_level to logical

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bump default wal_level to logical
Date: 2020-06-08 19:13:43
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkV1t9TZruy4kMtvkQi7E8xjyUPjOr2P1xSdSzkftWkDA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:09 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think the big overhead is that you log the old version of each row's
> primary key (or whatever the replica identity is) when performing an
> UPDATE or DELETE. So if you test it with integer keys probably it's
> not bad, and I suspect (though I haven't looked) that we don't do the
> extra logging when they key hasn't changed. But if you have wide text
> columns as keys and you update them a lot then things might not look
> so good. I think in the bad cases for this feature the overhead is
> vastly more than going from minimal to replica.
>
> As many people here probably know, I am in general skeptical of this
> kind of change. It's based on the premise that reconfiguring the
> system is either too hard for users to figure out, or too disruptive
> because they'll need a restart.

I completely agree with your analysis, and your conclusions.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-06-08 19:27:56 Re: Bump default wal_level to logical
Previous Message Robert Haas 2020-06-08 19:09:10 Re: Bump default wal_level to logical