Re: max_wal_senders must die - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: max_wal_senders must die
Date
Msg-id 4CC88EC2.2080803@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: max_wal_senders must die  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: max_wal_senders must die
List pgsql-hackers
> You're assuming that we should set up the default behavior to support
> replication and penalize those who aren't using it.

What's the penalty?  Simon just said that there isn't one.

And there's a difference between saying that I "failed to make a case"
vs. "the cost is too great".  Saying the former is saying that my
argument lacks merit (or content) entirely, rather than saying that it's
not sufficient.  I made a case, the case just didn't persuade you ... yet.

> I entirely agree that it ought to be easier to set up replication.
> But there's a difference between having a big red EASY button for people
> to push, and pushing it for them.

If we have a single boolean GUC called "replication", I would be happy.Even if it defaulted to "off".

--                                  -- Josh Berkus                                    PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                        http://www.pgexperts.com
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: foreign keys for array/period contains relationships