On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 16:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:

> The one downside I've found is that it adds 0.2
> seconds of CPU time per WAL file archive during our heaviest update
> periods.  It's in the archiver process, not a backend process that's
> running a query, and we're not generally CPU bound, so this is not a
> problem for us. 

OK, first time anybody's measured a significant cost to process creation
during execution of the archive_command. Still fairly low though.

Increasing the size of the WAL files would cure that. :-(

  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to