On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:06 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > 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.
+1'ing. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
