On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 08:16:13PM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
> Slightly tangential but are the locking operations associated with the
> recent bugfix generated in both (all?) modes or only hot_standby?
All modes.
> I thought
> it strange that transient locking operations were output with WAL t
Hello. I've been doing some benchmarks on performance / size differences
between actions when wal_level is set to either archive or hot_standby. I'm
not seeing a ton of difference. I've read some posts about discussions as
to whether this parameter should be simplified and remove or merge these
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>
> Slightly tangential but are the locking operations associated with the
> recent bugfix generated in both (all?) modes or only hot_standby? I thought
> it strange that transient locking operations were output with WAL though I
> get it if
Hi,
> > Went looking for this in the docs...
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/runtime-config-wal.html#GUC-WAL-LEVEL
> >
> > So I guess, no-restore/offline/online would be good names (and maybe
> > wal_restore_mode instead of wal_level) if we started from scratch. Note
> >
David Johnston wrote
>
> Noah Misch-2 wrote
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 03:06:02PM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
>>> shamccoy wrote
>>> > Hello. I've been doing some benchmarks on performance / size
>>> differences
>>> > between actions when wal_level is set to either archive or
>>> hot_standby.
>
Noah Misch-2 wrote
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 03:06:02PM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
>> shamccoy wrote
>> > Hello. I've been doing some benchmarks on performance / size
>> differences
>> > between actions when wal_level is set to either archive or hot_standby.
>> > I'm not seeing a ton of differe
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 03:06:02PM -0700, David Johnston wrote:
> shamccoy wrote
> > Hello. I've been doing some benchmarks on performance / size differences
> > between actions when wal_level is set to either archive or hot_standby.
> > I'm not seeing a ton of difference. I've read some posts a
On 03/27/2014 03:06 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> As I think both can be used for PITR I don't believe there is much downside,
> technically or with resources, to using hot_standby instead of archive; but
> I do not imagine it having any practical benefit either.
Actually, "hot_standby" does have to
shamccoy wrote
> Hello. I've been doing some benchmarks on performance / size differences
> between actions when wal_level is set to either archive or hot_standby.
> I'm not seeing a ton of difference. I've read some posts about
> discussions as to whether this parameter should be simplified and
