From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: max_wal_senders must die |
Date: | 2010-10-27 20:42:42 |
Message-ID: | 4CC88EC2.2080803@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> You're assuming that we should set up the default behavior to support
> replication and penalize those who aren't using it.
What's the penalty? Simon just said that there isn't one.
And there's a difference between saying that I "failed to make a case"
vs. "the cost is too great". Saying the former is saying that my
argument lacks merit (or content) entirely, rather than saying that it's
not sufficient. I made a case, the case just didn't persuade you ... yet.
> 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.
If we have a single boolean GUC called "replication", I would be happy.
Even if it defaulted to "off".
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-10-27 20:53:37 | Re: foreign keys for array/period contains relationships |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-10-27 19:53:29 | Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock |