Re: Bump default wal_level to logical - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Bump default wal_level to logical
Date
Msg-id 2021525.1591637270@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bump default wal_level to logical  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Bump default wal_level to logical  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I think it's reasonable to push our default limits for slots,
> walsenders, max_bgworkers etc a lot higher than current value (say 10 ->
> 100).  An unused slot wastes essentially no resources; an unused
> walsender is just one PGPROC entry.  If we did that, and also allowed
> wal_level to be changed on the fly, we wouldn't need to restart in order
> to enable logical replication, so there would be little or no pressure
> to change the wal_level default.

Unused PGPROC entries will still consume semaphores, which is problematic
on at least some OSes.  It's not really clear to me why the default for
walsenders would need to be O(100) anyway.  The existing default of 10
already ought to be enough to cover approximately 99.999% of use cases.

If we can allow wal_level to be changed on the fly, I agree that would
help reduce the pressure to make the default setting more expensive.
I don't recall why it's PGC_POSTMASTER right now, but I suppose there
was a reason for that ...

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Bump default wal_level to logical