Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEzNqGjrofVemt+yFx1SCrxpiPV+8d6VjYwuBfm3goDv6w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> 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 than number of people running into "Hey,
CREATE TABLE + COPY is slower now!"
I'm betting it's way higher. Loads of folks use Postgres and never do any kind of ETL.
I'm willing to say "the majority".
That is not to say there are no other cases benefiting from those
optimizations, but we're talking about the default value - we're not
removing the wal_level=minimal.
This would be a non-issue if we provided example configs for a few different workloads. Obviously those would never be optimal either, but they *would* show users what settings they should immediately look at changing in their environment.
It might also be worthwhile to provide a section in the docs just saying "these are the parameters you probably want to look at for workload <x>" rather than an actual example configuration. Including a short sentence or two about why.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: