| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Date: | 2016-09-01 17:20:00 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jJXWQyK0s588rkxLypuceTmzYF9dpNsPUyaCuWDFyyahg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1 September 2016 at 17:23, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The primary audience of this feature is PostgreSQL developers
I have spoken to users who are waiting for this feature to run in
production, which is why I suggested it.
Some people care more about correctness than they do about loss of performance.
Obviously, this would be expensive and those with a super high
performance requirement may not be able to take advantage of this. I'm
sure many people will turn it off once if they hit a performance
issue, but running it in production for the first few months will give
people a very safe feeling.
I think the primary use for an rmgr filter might well be PostgreSQL developers.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-09-01 17:20:59 | Re: pg_basebackup, pg_receivexlog and data durability (was: silent data loss with ext4 / all current versions) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-01 17:16:37 | Re: System load consideration before spawning parallel workers |