> That's not even considering the extra WAL that is generated when you > move up from wal_level = "minimal". That's probably the bigger > performance issue in practice.
Yeah, I think we've established that we can't change that. > I said, and meant, that you didn't make the case at all; you just > presumed it was obvious that we should change the defaults to be > replication-friendly. I don't think it is. As I said, I think that > only a minority of our users are going to want replication. 50% of PGX's active clients have either already converted to 9.0 replication or have scheduled a conversion with us. I expect that to be 80% by the time 9.1 comes out, and the main reason why it's not 100% is that a few clients specifically need Slony (partial replication or similar) or ad-hoc replication systems. Every time I do a walk-through of how to do replication at a PG event it's packed. I've talked to dozens of people who are planning to implement 9.0 replication at conferences, and it's outpaced "how does it compare to MySQL" for stuff people ask me about at booths. >From where I sit, you're *dramatically* underestimating the demand for replication. Maybe other people haven't had the same experiences, but I'm seeing an avalanche of demand. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers