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.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to