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
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 |