Re: Bump default wal_level to logical

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: Bump default wal_level to logical
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoYHptTXESRz0BAG3NXORs98Ty3GTb4rD02FTGNfhFre3w@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Bump default wal_level to logical  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы 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>)
Список 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



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Bump default wal_level to logical
Следующее
От: Kenneth Marshall
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Bump default wal_level to logical