On 1/10/17 3:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:

> * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I may be outvoted, but I'm still not in favor of changing the default
>>> wal_level.  That caters only to people who lack sufficient foresight
>>> to know that they need a replica before the system becomes so critical
>>> that they can't bounce it to update the configuration.
>> True. But the current level only caters to those people who run large ETL
>> jobs without doing any tuning on their system (at least none that would
>> require a restart), or another one of the fairly specific workloads.
>> And as I keep re-iterating, it's not just about replicas, it's also about
>> the ability to make proper backups. Which is a pretty fundamental feature.
>> I do think you are outvoted, yes :) At least that's the result of my
>> tallying up the people who have spoken out on the thread.
> I tend to agree with Magnus on this, being able to perform an online
> backup is pretty darn important.

Agreed and +1.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to