On 2/3/15 11:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Crazy ideas: Could we make wal_level something other than
PGC_POSTMASTER? PGC_SIGHUP would be nice... Could we, maybe, even
make it a derived value rather than one that is explicitly configured?
Like, if you set max_wal_senders0, you automatically get
On 02/04/2015 06:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Anyway, I'm not talking about deriving the GUC, I'm talking about
deriving the WAL level which is currently controlled solely by the
GUC. We do something like this for full-page writes. Even if you in
general have full_page_writes=off, trying to
On 2015-02-03 11:00:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
stability concerns. I think we
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2015-02-03 11:00:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Could we, maybe, even make it a derived value rather than one that is
explicitly configured? Like, if you set max_wal_senders0, you
automatically get
wal_level=hot_standby?
Our experience with
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think my vote is to maintain the status quo. What you're basically
proposing to do is ship the system half-configured for replication,
and I don't see the point of that.
Not only replication, but also hot backup.
Hi,
I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
stability concerns. I think we can by now be confident about the
wal_level = hot_standby changes (note I'm not proposing hot_standby =
on).
So let's remove
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Additionally I think we should change the default for wal_level to
hot_standby and max_wal_senders (maybe to 5). That way users can use
pg_basebackup and setup streaming standbys without having to restart the
primary. I think that'd be a important
On 2015-02-03 10:41:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Additionally I think we should change the default for wal_level to
hot_standby and max_wal_senders (maybe to 5). That way users can use
pg_basebackup and setup streaming standbys without having to
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
stability concerns. I think we can by now be confident about the
wal_level =
On 2015-02-03 13:51:25 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Those who want to optimize their WAL size can set it back to minimal, but
let's make the default the one that makes life *easy* for people.
Precisely. New users won't usually have tremendous stuff to load in the
specific circumstances in
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
stability concerns. I think we can by now be confident about the
wal_level =
On 03/02/15 13:51, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
mailto:and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Hi,
I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of
On 2015-02-03 21:58:44 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
stability concerns. I
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Hi,
I think these days there's no reason for the split between the archive
and hot_standby wal levels. The split was made out of volume and
stability concerns. I think we can by now be confident about the
wal_level
14 matches
Mail list logo
