Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:06 AM, David Steele > 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

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:06 AM, David Steele 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 wrote: > I may be outvoted, but I'm still not in

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

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 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

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

Greetings, * Magnus Hagander (mag...@hagander.net) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut > > wrote: > > > On 1/9/17 7:44 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > >> So

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 1/9/17 7:44 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> So based on that, I suggest we go ahead and make the change to make both >

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/9/17 7:44 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> So based on that, I suggest we go ahead and make the change to make both >> the values 10 by default. And that we do that now, because that lets us >> get it

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 1/9/17 7:44 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > So based on that, I suggest we go ahead and make the change to make both > the values 10 by default. And that we do that now, because that lets us > get it out through more testing on different platforms, so that we catch > issues earlier on if they do

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 1/5/17 2:50 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >> Ultimately, the question is whether the number of people running into >> "Hey, I can't take pg_basebackup or setup a standby with the default >> config!" is higher or lower

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 1/7/17 6:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > In the build farm, I have found 6 critters that do not end up with > the > > 100/128MB setting: sidewinder, curculio, coypu, brolga, lorikeet, > >

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 1/5/17 2:50 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: Ultimately, the question is whether the number of people running into "Hey, I can't take pg_basebackup or setup a standby with the default config!" is higher or lower than number of people running into "Hey, CREATE TABLE + COPY is slower now!" I'm betting

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 1/7/17 6:23 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > In the build farm, I have found 6 critters that do not end up with the > 100/128MB setting: sidewinder, curculio, coypu, brolga, lorikeet, > opossum. I wonder what limitations initdb is bumping against. > > > Since you lookeda t the data

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 1/5/17 12:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-01-05 08:38:32 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> I also suggest making the defaults for both 20 instead of 10. That > >> leaves enough room that

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 1/5/17 12:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-05 08:38:32 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I also suggest making the defaults for both 20 instead of 10. That >> leaves enough room that almost nobody ever has to change them, whereas >> 10 can be a bit tight for some not-outrageous

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 1/5/17 4:56 PM, Michael Banck wrote: >> You can't actually change the other two without changing wal_level. > That actually goes both ways: I recently saw a server not start cause we > were experimenting with temporarily setting wal_level to minimal for > initial bulk loading, but did not

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 10:21:41AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 31 December 2016 at 15:00, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > max_wal_senders=10 > > > max_replication_slots=20 [...] > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 01/05/2017 05:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: Tomas, * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: On 01/05/2017 02:23 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: It's easy enough to construct a benchmark specifically to show the difference, but of any actual "normal workload" for it. Typically the

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 2017-01-05 09:12:49 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-05 18:08:36 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > > On 2017-01-05 08:38:32 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > I also suggest making the defaults for

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 2017-01-05 18:08:36 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On 2017-01-05 08:38:32 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > I also suggest making the defaults for both 20 instead of 10. That > > > leaves enough room that

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-05 08:38:32 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > I also suggest making the defaults for both 20 instead of 10. That > > leaves enough room that almost nobody ever has to change them, whereas > > 10 can be a bit

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 2017-01-05 08:38:32 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I also suggest making the defaults for both 20 instead of 10. That > leaves enough room that almost nobody ever has to change them, whereas > 10 can be a bit tight for some not-outrageous installations (8 standbys > plus backup?). I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

Tomas, * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 01/05/2017 02:23 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >It's easy enough to construct a benchmark specifically to show the > >difference, but of any actual "normal workload" for it. Typically the > >optimization applies to things like bulk

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 01/05/2017 02:23 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: On 01/03/2017 11:56 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: Hi, ... I'll push results for larger ones once those

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 1/4/17 2:44 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/4/17 9:46 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> How about we default max_replication_slots to -1, which means to use the >> same value as max_wal_senders? > >> But you don't necessarily want to adjust them together, do you? They are >> both capped

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 01/03/2017 11:56 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> ... > >> I'll push results for larger ones once those tests complete (possibly >> tomorrow). >> >> > I just pushed additional results (from the

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 01/03/2017 11:56 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: Hi, ... I'll push results for larger ones once those tests complete (possibly tomorrow). I just pushed additional results (from the additional scales) to the git repositories. On the larger (16/32-cores) machine with 2x e5-2620, the results

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 3 January 2017 at 12:34, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> In the hope of making things better in 10.0, I remove my objection. If >> people want to use wal_level = minimal they can restart their

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 1/4/17 9:46 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > How about we default max_replication_slots to -1, which means to use the > same value as max_wal_senders? > But you don't necessarily want to adjust them together, do you? They are > both capped by max_connections, but I don't think they have

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 12/31/16 10:00 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > max_wal_senders=10 > max_replication_slots=20 How about we default max_replication_slots to -1, which means to use the same value as max_wal_senders? I think this would address the needs of 99% of users. If we do like you suggest, there are going

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 12/31/16 10:00 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > max_wal_senders=10 > > max_replication_slots=20 > > How about we default max_replication_slots to -1, which means to use the > same value as

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 01/03/2017 01:34 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: In the hope of making things better in 10.0, I remove my objection. If people want to use wal_level = minimal they can restart their server and they can find that out in

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

Hi, On 12/31/2016 04:00 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Cycling back to this topic again, but this time at the beginning of a CF. Here's an actual patch to change: wal_level=replica max_wal_senders=10 max_replication_slots=20 Based on feedback from last year

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > In the hope of making things better in 10.0, I remove my objection. If > people want to use wal_level = minimal they can restart their server > and they can find that out in the release notes. > > Should we set wal_level

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 2 January 2017 at 09:39, Magnus Hagander wrote: > The conclusion has been that our defaults should really allow people to take > backups of their systems, and they currently don't. > > Making things run faster is tuning, and people should expect to do that if > they need

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 2 January 2017 at 09:48, Simon Riggs wrote: > I'm willing to assist in a project to allow changing wal_level online > in this release. Please let's follow that path. wal_level looks like one of the easier ones to change without a server restart There are actions to

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 2017-01-02 10:31:28 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > We must listen to feedback, not just try to blast through it. Not agreeing with your priorities isn't "blasting through feedback". -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 2 January 2017 at 10:13, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-02 11:05:05 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> My claim here is that a lot *fewer* people have come to expect this >> performance optimization, than would (quite reasonably) expect that backups >> should work on a

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 2017-01-02 11:05:05 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > My claim here is that a lot *fewer* people have come to expect this > performance optimization, than would (quite reasonably) expect that backups > should work on a system without taking it down for restart to reconfigure > it to support that.

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 2 January 2017 at 09:39, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Please do submit a patch for it. > > The way this is supposed to go is someone submits a patch and they > receive feedback, then act on that

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 2 January 2017 at 09:39, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Please do submit a patch for it. The way this is supposed to go is someone submits a patch and they receive feedback, then act on that feedback. If I was able to get away with deflecting all review comments with a simple

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 2 January 2017 at 09:21, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Simon Riggs > wrote: > >> > >> On 31 December 2016 at 15:00, Magnus Hagander

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 2 January 2017 at 09:21, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On 31 December 2016 at 15:00, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> > Cycling back to this topic again, but this time at the

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 31 December 2016 at 15:00, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Cycling back to this topic again, but this time at the beginning of a CF. > > > > Here's an actual patch to change: > > > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults

On 31 December 2016 at 15:00, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Cycling back to this topic again, but this time at the beginning of a CF. > > Here's an actual patch to change: > > > max_wal_senders=10 > max_replication_slots=20 +1 If that doesn't fly, it seems easy enough to