Re: hot_standby = on

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: hot_standby = on
Date: 2010-06-09 23:19:26
Message-ID: 1276125566.23257.1267.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 17:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > Well, yes. But then to stop that you could just lock users out using
> > pg_hba.conf, no? It just doesn't seem to be buying all that much to me.
>
> The main reason to turn it off is to disable a whole lot of very poorly
> tested code, and thereby improve the reliability of your warm standby
> server.

> There might be (almost certainly are) significant performance
> benefits as well.

I would be happy to look over any performance results you have that show
this to be true. I only know of one area I thought was a significant
loss in some cases, which you canned because we had no evidence it was a
problem...

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-06-10 00:01:58 Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2010-06-09 23:05:59 Bug or feature? Timestamp parsing