Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Konstantin Knizhnik
Subject Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication
Date
Msg-id 8f5cd09d-ad80-d746-abd7-a606d17b0a38@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 22.08.2019 6:13, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Hello.
>
> At Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:06:52 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru> wrote in
<968fc591-51d3-fd74-8a55-40aa770baa3a@postgrespro.ru>
>> Ok, you convinced me that there are cases when people want to combine
>> logical replication with streaming replication without slot.
>> But is it acceptable to have GUC variable (disabled by default) which
>> allows to use this optimizations?
> The odds are quite high. Couldn't we introduce a new wal_level
> value instead?
>
> wal_level = logical_only
>
>
> I think this thread shows that logical replication no longer is a
> superset(?) of physical replication.  I thougt that we might be
> able to change wal_level from scalar to bitmap but it breaks
> backward compatibility..
>
> regards.
>

I can propose the following patch introducing new level logical_only.
I will be please to receive comments concerning adding new wal_level and 
possible problems caused by it.

-- 
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and KeyManagement Service (KMS)
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large?