Re: Why does PostgresNode.pm set such a low value of max_wal_senders?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why does PostgresNode.pm set such a low value of max_wal_senders? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 982653.1601559772@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why does PostgresNode.pm set such a low value of max_wal_senders? (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:38:59PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: >> In favor of minimal values, we've had semaphore-starved buildfarm members in >> the past. Perhaps those days are over, seeing that this commit has not yet >> broken a buildfarm member in that particular way. Keeping max_wal_senders=10 >> seems fine. > Indeed, I am not spotting anything suspicious here. Yeah, so far so good. Note that PostgresNode.pm does attempt to cater for semaphore-starved machines, by cutting max_connections as much as it can. In practice the total semaphore usage of a subscription test is probably still less than that of one postmaster with default max_connections. >> No, PostgreSQL commit 54c2ecb changed that. I recommend an explicit >> max_wal_senders=10 in PostgresNode, which makes it easy to test >> wal_level=minimal: > Ah, thanks, I have missed this piece. So we really need to have a > value set in this module after all. Agreed, I'll go put it back. On the other point, I think that we should continue to complain about max_wal_senders > 0 with wal_level = minimal. If we reduce that to a LOG message, which'd be the net effect of trying to be laxer, people wouldn't see it and would then wonder why they can't start replication. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: