From: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Optimization of vacuum for logical replication |
Date: | 2019-08-23 11:37:28 |
Message-ID: | 8f5cd09d-ad80-d746-abd7-a606d17b0a38@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22.08.2019 6:13, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Hello.
>
> At Wed, 21 Aug 2019 18:06:52 +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote in <968fc591-51d3-fd74-8a55-40aa770baa3a(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
>> Ok, you convinced me that there are cases when people want to combine
>> logical replication with streaming replication without slot.
>> But is it acceptable to have GUC variable (disabled by default) which
>> allows to use this optimizations?
> The odds are quite high. Couldn't we introduce a new wal_level
> value instead?
>
> wal_level = logical_only
>
>
> I think this thread shows that logical replication no longer is a
> superset(?) of physical replication. I thougt that we might be
> able to change wal_level from scalar to bitmap but it breaks
> backward compatibility..
>
> regards.
>
I can propose the following patch introducing new level logical_only.
I will be please to receive comments concerning adding new wal_level and
possible problems caused by it.
--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
logical_only.patch | text/x-patch | 11.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-08-23 11:42:27 | Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2019-08-23 11:36:03 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |