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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Bump default wal_level to logical
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYHptTXESRz0BAG3NXORs98Ty3GTb4rD02FTGNfhFre3w@mail.gmail.com
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  (Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>)
Re: Bump default wal_level to logical  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Bump default wal_level to logical  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:16 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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.

Wouldn't having a whole bunch of extra PGPROC entries have negative
implications for the performance of GetSnapshotData() and other things
that don't scale well at high connection counts?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Bump default wal_level to logical
Next
From: Kenneth Marshall
Date:
Subject: Re: Bump default wal_level to logical