Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Steele
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults
Date
Msg-id 3f52b0b1-b3b3-9bc0-4c10-107414800970@pgmasters.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 1/10/17 3:06 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:

> * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> 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.
>
> I tend to agree with Magnus on this, being able to perform an online
> backup is pretty darn important.

Agreed and +1.

--
-David
david@pgmasters.net


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Questionable tag usage
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication/backup defaults