Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEyaBRaROdZbxY=tJHUAfAW9+GcuuwRtiPSJpDaL=E6HVA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> 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 out through more testing on different platforms, so that we catch
>> issues earlier on if they do arise.
>
> Sounds good.
I may be outvoted, but I'm still not in favor of changing the default
wal_level. That caters only to people who lack sufficient foresight
to know that they need a replica before the system becomes so critical
that they can't bounce it to update the configuration.
True. But the current level only caters to those people who run large ETL jobs without doing any tuning on their system (at least none that would require a restart), or another one of the fairly specific workloads.
And as I keep re-iterating, it's not just about replicas, it's also about the ability to make proper backups. Which is a pretty fundamental feature.
I do think you are outvoted, yes :) At least that's the result of my tallying up the people who have spoken out on the thread.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: