From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: max_wal_senders must die |
Date: | 2010-10-27 19:33:55 |
Message-ID: | 26037.1288208035@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> Josh has completely failed to make a case that
>>> that should be the default.
>>
>> Agreed.
> In what way have a failed to make a case?
You're assuming that we should set up the default behavior to support
replication and penalize those who aren't using it. Considering that
we haven't even *had* replication until now, it seems a pretty safe
bet that the majority of our users aren't using it and won't appreciate
that default. We routinely expend large amounts of effort to avoid
cross-version performance regressions, and I don't see that this one
is acceptable when others aren't.
I entirely agree that it ought to be easier to set up replication.
But there's a difference between having a big red EASY button for people
to push, and pushing it for them.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-27 19:38:17 | Re: Simplifying replication |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-27 19:10:58 | Re: max_wal_senders must die |