On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> There's *definitely* not going to be enough information in the WAL
> stream coming from a master that doesn't think it has HS slaves.
> We can't afford to record all that extra stuff in installations for
> which it's just useless overhead. BTW, has anyone made any attempt
> to measure the performance hit that the patch in its current form is
> creating via added WAL entries?
What extra entries?
--
greg
