On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 16:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> The one downside I've found is that it adds 0.2
> seconds of CPU time per WAL file archive during our heaviest update
> periods. It's in the archiver process, not a backend process that's
> running a query, and we're not generally CPU bound, so this is not a
> problem for us.
OK, first time anybody's measured a significant cost to process creation
during execution of the archive_command. Still fairly low though.
Increasing the size of the WAL files would cure that. :-(
-- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
