On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think here the comparison should be between the case of (active backend + > 1 worker) with (passive backend + 1 worker) or (active backend + 2 worker) > with (passive backend + 2 workers). I don't think it is good assumption > that workers are always freely available and you can use them as and when > required for any operation.
Strong +1. The pool of background workers is necessarily quite limited and you can't just gobble them up. I'm not saying that it's absolutely essential that the leader can also participate, but saying that 1 active leader + 1 worker is only 2% faster than 1 passive leader + 2 workers is not comparing apples to apples. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers