Re: Bump default wal_level to logical

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bump default wal_level to logical
Date: 2020-06-08 06:45:55
Message-ID: 20200608064555.GE2589@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 11:59:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think we should first do performance testing to see what is the
> overhead of making this default. I think pgbench read-write at
> various scale factors would be a good starting point. Also, we should
> see how much additional WAL it generates as compared to current
> default.

+1. I recall that changing wal_level to logical has been discussed in
the past and performance was the actual take to debate on.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2020-06-08 06:52:41 Re: Removal of currtid()/currtid2() and some table AM cleanup
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-06-08 06:29:14 Re: Bump default wal_level to logical